258 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 September 2018 - 04:48 PM, said:

-snip-

You think laser vomit comparisons can use better cases?

Then name me some IS laser vomit mechs that are border-line useful to be even considered in a meaningful comparison.

BLR comparison makes sense, since its the one of the only/better IS options.

[Navid A1]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 September 2018 - 04:48 PM, said:

The MAD-IIC corners better than a BLR, and corners (combined with longer range) allow greater use of parallax to further reduce exposure time because ridges have tighter terrain limitations.

The MAD-IIC is certainly more sluggish than a BLR (nominal accel is half, decel is 4 kph slower, but remember these are both on curves and you only need the front part of the curve to poke), but the above items, combined with a superior shape for rolling incidental (unaimed) damage means it's a wash for exposure risk at mid-range. Even at long-range, the BLR's mounts are not a definitive trump-card unless the map only features vertical exposures (i.e. Polar Highlands). The longer range and better heat efficiency of 5x cERLL fired 3+2 typically offers greater utility across a wider range of scenarios than the better mounts of 6x isERLL, and that's without even getting into the durability discussion.

The "over and over" part has to do with the actual firing; would you rather be pushing 50 damage every ~6 seconds while you ride that heat line, or 63?

MAD-IIC corners better... and that changes something?


And moving into ERLL territory... on Polar? At least Mid-range comparisons being in favor of MAD-IIC had merit as you can see here:




I advise you to take that 5xcERLL MAD-IIC and see for yourself if it is that much more effective than a BLR with 6 or even 5 ERLLs. MAD-IIC has to expose its entire torso for a peek... and you can shoot it and duck back before it even clears its weapons off ground.
Also you forgot to mention that BLR exposes for around 1.5 seconds to shoot... MAD-IIC exposes for 4+

Mechs that need to expose for a long time need to be capable of sustained damage... Like a MCII-B.

Edited by Navid A1, 11 September 2018 - 02:43 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Navid A1, on 10 September 2018 - 09:24 PM, said:

MAD-IIC corners better... and that changes something?


And moving into ERLL territory... on Polar? At least Mid-range comparisons being in favor of MAD-IIC had merit as you can see here:

I advise you to take that 5xcERLL MAD-IIC and see for yourself if it is that much more effective than a BLR with 6 or even 5 ERLLs. MAD-IIC has to expose its entire torso for a peek... and you can shoot it and duck back before it even clears its weapons off ground.
Also you forgot to mention that BLR exposes for around 1.5 seconds to shoot... MAD-IIC exposes for 4+

Mechs that need to expose for a long time need to be capable of sustained damage... Like a MCII-B.

I think you missed his entire point.....and yes, the MAD-IIC can poke corners better which is what a lot of terrain is more focused on (a lot more corners than ridges you can comfortably poke from without JJs). The SVN-C also replaced the BLR-2C for ERLL duty on Polar iirc with 6 ERLL or something like that (though the MKII with 4 cERLL and 2 Gauss would probably do better than the SVN these days).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 September 2018 - 09:48 PM.

[MechTech Dragoon]

Has any thought gone into the dual heavy gauss issue? Like placing a one at a time firing limit on it? since the recoil doesnt really effect the gauss rifles themselves....only the weapons mounted with it. 50 pinpoint, virtually no heat, with oct patch really no heat...50 pinpoint alpha, decent range.

Getting insta-cored by a couple cyclops got old awhile ago.

[MechTech Dragoon]

Also....flamers, YESSSSSSSSS PLEAAAAAAAAAAAASE look at flamers....increase damage, reduce heat delivered, increase heat generated, reduce flamer overheat bar generation buff...theres never been a mechwarrior game where flamers did such pathetic damage and delivered such massive heat payloads.
And for the love of all that is holy, get rid of the flashlight effect....A weapon with 0 "rule of cool" attached is going to see rare use just because of that, let alone its pathetic damage.

[MiZia]

Tbh im still thinking that duration differences alone make up for more boated dhs on clan side.
Dunno who says that normal reaction time is in a second window, i feel that when im shooted with lvom ill have rather sub .5 second reaction time thats why im more comfortable being hit by clan laser rather than is ones. Its much easyer to roll those out.
So even if i can do more damage on clan vomit it is not as effective as on is side.
Those 10-20% of my clan vomit damage rolled just bring both sides close enough to be comparable.

[justcallme A S H]

XkrX Dragoon, on 10 September 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

Has any thought gone into the dual heavy gauss issue? Like placing a one at a time firing limit on it? since the recoil doesnt really effect the gauss rifles themselves....only the weapons mounted with it. 50 pinpoint, virtually no heat, with oct patch really no heat...50 pinpoint alpha, decent range.

Getting insta-cored by a couple cyclops got old awhile ago.

What HGauss issue?

Don't get within 350m of the slow moving Dual HGauss mech without support. That does require use of the map and some basic awareness. What Tier 1 players should be doing.

I've been headshot 3 times by HGauss in 3 days when under 300m. Does that translate to a HGauss issue? Absolutely not.

[Navid A1]

XkrX Dragoon, on 10 September 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

Has any thought gone into the dual heavy gauss issue? Like placing a one at a time firing limit on it? since the recoil doesnt really effect the gauss rifles themselves....only the weapons mounted with it. 50 pinpoint, virtually no heat, with oct patch really no heat...50 pinpoint alpha, decent range.

Getting insta-cored by a couple cyclops got old awhile ago.

HGauss has issues?

[denAirwalkerrr]

Navid A1, on 11 September 2018 - 02:28 AM, said:

HGauss has issues?

Yes, it’s actually playable.

[Bud Crue]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 September 2018 - 02:55 PM, said:

Placating comment, which for some reason you feel necessary to provide in answer to the totally false complaint that only clans have been nerfed for 24 months in a row when even a cursory review of the patches during that time show this is anything but true, but don’t worry we are going to nerf the Annihilator and others

I hate it when you do this: Make a broadly general statement, then give an example of an over performing outlier, yet still say nothing of the mechs that were actually covered by you initial broad statement.

Giving a slight pull back on defensive quirks to the Anni is perhaps warranted; it is by most folks admittedly subjective view one of the best 100 toners and a top IS assault. Great. That’s one mech that is largely agreed to be performing in a manner superior to others of similar ilk. Perhaps it does need adjustment.

But, see I just want to know how badly you are going to hit the...how did you put it above: “the more aggressively quirked mechs”? These aggressively quirked mechs may very well include the Annihilator but the truly aggressively quirked mechs are widely viewed by clann and IS players alike as some of thee worst mechs in the game. So are you really looking to nerf Panthers? Vindicators? Dragons? Cataphracts? Send the Victors back to their two year span of exile? Make the Atlas even less of a presence?

I’m just looking for some guidance here. Some sense of hope that I am wrong. I mean if you are going to address a falsehood that only clans have been beat down for the last two years with a literary pat on the head and a don’t worry we’ll tap down those nasty Annihilators response. Can you at least give some idea as to what is in store for how you intend to nerf the worst mechs in the game (which PGI has inexplicable history of doing in the name of some odd view of the word “balance”) in accordance with your statement above?

[Ery]

I like the Heatsink change. Buffing dakka a little bit is also ok for me.

[Laser Kiwi]

Bud Crue, on 11 September 2018 - 03:34 AM, said:

I hate it when you do this: Make a broadly general statement, then give an example of an over performing outlier, yet still say nothing of the mechs that were actually covered by you initial broad statement.

Giving a slight pull back on defensive quirks to the Anni is perhaps warranted; it is by most folks admittedly subjective view one of the best 100 toners and a top IS assault. Great. That’s one mech that is largely agreed to be performing in a manner superior to others of similar ilk. Perhaps it does need adjustment.

But, see I just want to know how badly you are going to hit the...how did you put it above: “the more aggressively quirked mechs”? These aggressively quirked mechs may very well include the Annihilator but the truly aggressively quirked mechs are widely viewed by clann and IS players alike as some of thee worst mechs in the game. So are you really looking to nerf Panthers? Vindicators? Dragons? Cataphracts? Send the Victors back to their two year span of exile? Make the Atlas even less of a presence?

I’m just looking for some guidance here. Some sense of hope that I am wrong. I mean if you are going to address a falsehood that only clans have been beat down for the last two years with a literary pat on the head and a don’t worry we’ll tap down those nasty Annihilators response. Can you at least give some idea as to what is in store for how you intend to nerf the worst mechs in the game (which PGI has inexplicable history of doing in the name of some odd view of the word “balance”) in accordance with your statement above?

This is something,
i mean if you're going to 'ruin' my favourite mechs like the iv4, the anni and a few others give them an agility buff.

I like the cyclops because the torso agility is very high, but a couple of other mechs on both sides could use a hand there. The annihilator has a slow torso, so it would be horrible once the armour quirks go and a lot of good players i've played against slaughter that head stalk if you have the misfortune of having to crest.

On the other hand having played a kodiak which feels like its in a giant tub of molasses we could probably do with some quirks being added to assaults on both sides.

And yeah, imagine the dragon without ultra jam decrease quirk for example, total non starter, it has such limited options as is.

Edited by Laser Kiwi, 11 September 2018 - 05:56 AM.

[Laser Kiwi]

Whilst i'm here, i know the clans have been nerfed significantly over time to bring them back to PVP world order, but heck i'm still hurting over the 9% damage decrease my IS large pulse lasers endured last year. 1 point damage decrease, it felt like more than that....

justcallme A S H, on 11 September 2018 - 02:22 AM, said:

What HGauss issue?

Don't get within 350m of the slow moving Dual HGauss mech without support. That does require use of the map and some basic awareness. What Tier 1 players should be doing.

I've been headshot 3 times by HGauss in 3 days when under 300m. Does that translate to a HGauss issue? Absolutely not.

Also once the armour is gone that heavy gauss is critted out of existence before you can say "weapon explosion detected"

Edited by Laser Kiwi, 11 September 2018 - 06:03 AM.

[Daurock]

Laser Kiwi, on 11 September 2018 - 05:54 AM, said:

This is something,
i mean if you're going to 'ruin' my favourite mechs like the iv4, the anni and a few others give them an agility buff.

I like the cyclops because the torso agility is very high, but a couple of other mechs on both sides could use a hand there. The annihilator has a slow torso, so it would be horrible once the armour quirks go and a lot of good players i've played against slaughter that head stalk if you have the misfortune of having to crest.

On the other hand having played a kodiak which feels like its in a giant tub of molasses we could probably do with some quirks being added to assaults on both sides.

And yeah, imagine the dragon without ultra jam decrease quirk for example, total non starter, it has such limited options as is.

I would argue that a few assaults, such as the Cyclops, are probably already too fast, rather than most assaults being too slow - The cyclops twists faster than mechs like the catapult, Jagermech, and rifleman, which is a little ridiculous. Hell, it almost matches the ShadowHawk, a mech that's a whopping 35 tons lighter.

Now, don't take that as a glaring indictment that all assaults should be molasses slow, or that i don't think some of the particularly slow assaults don't need a little help. Many of the mechs that twist in the 50s either need an bucketload of armor to match (see annihilator) or a smallish rate increase. (Think agility close to the levels seen on the current stalker, or Awesome.)

However, expecting the agility of a 60 ton mech is probably not realistic to see in any assault mech you can put an assault class payload in. The only way I'd support that kind of agility in an assault mech is if they moved the minimum Engine size to an uncomfortably high level. (Think like 350 minimum, for an IS mech) The clan mechs that have that kind of agility are typically Locked to an over-sized engine, and that more or less works. IS mechs can follow the same path if they're going to have out-lier agility mechs.

Edited by Daurock, 11 September 2018 - 06:36 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Daurock, on 11 September 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

I would argue that a few assaults, such as the Cyclops, are probably already too fast, rather than most assaults being too slow - The cyclops twists faster than mechs like the catapult, Jagermech, and rifleman, which is a little ridiculous. Hell, it almost matches the ShadowHawk, a mech that's a whopping 35 tons lighter.

Don’t worry. The Cyclops or at least the Sleipnir’s days are numbered. From Chris’s second post at the top:

“While we are willing to try to find a middle ground to provide under performing and heavier 'Mechs who have a core brawling role the ability to better twist damage, that ability to more easily twist damage also translates into an ability to more easily track lighter targets. Of which, making it easier to snap fire twin Heavy Gauss against lighter targets is not the desired effect that results in a net positive when considering the balance across the entire weight spectrum.”

Enjoy that agility while it lasts.

By the way, can anyone identify for me the mechs “who have a core brawling role”? Seriously I brawl with everything so I am just wondering which mechs are apparently limited to this “core” role so I have some idea which will get to be agile and which won’t. I mean, based on current performance this comment would suggest that one should not be brawling in a Kodiak, Atlas, Mauler, and well an awful lot of slow twisting mechs, and yet brawling would seem to be what some of these mechs were in fact designed for (an Atlas with low slung weapons is not exactly a sniper, etc.). Also, if only certain mechs are going to be provided with the ability to readily twist and or whatever else provides a “core brawling role” than that seems to me to be an admission that this play style will no longer be about player choice but rather dictated on the whims of what mechs PGI wants to bless with these abilities (twist and whatever else).

[Daurock]

Bud Crue, on 11 September 2018 - 07:13 AM, said:

Don’t worry. The Cyclops or at least the Sleipnir’s days are numbered. From Chris’s second post at the top:

“While we are willing to try to find a middle ground to provide under performing and heavier 'Mechs who have a core brawling role the ability to better twist damage, that ability to more easily twist damage also translates into an ability to more easily track lighter targets. Of which, making it easier to snap fire twin Heavy Gauss against lighter targets is not the desired effect that results in a net positive when considering the balance across the entire weight spectrum.”

Enjoy that agility while it lasts.

By the way, can anyone identify for me the mechs “who have a core brawling role”? Seriously I brawl with everything so I am just wondering which mechs are apparently limited to this “core” role so I have some idea which will get to be agile and which won’t. I mean, based on current performance this comment would suggest that one should not be brawling in a Kodiak, Atlas, Mauler, and well an awful lot of slow twisting mechs, and yet brawling would seem to be what some of these mechs were in fact designed for (an Atlas with low slung weapons is not exactly a sniper, etc.). Also, if only certain mechs are going to be provided with the ability to readily twist and or whatever else provides a “core brawling role” than that seems to me to be an admission that this play style will no longer be about player choice but rather dictated on the whims of what mechs PGI wants to bless with these abilities (twist and whatever else).

Missed that bit about the Sleepy, good to know they're not pushing for all the assaults to match that HGR mech.

As to which mechs are the defined brawlers, That's a pretty good question to ask the devs, though I do think there's more than 1 way to create a quality Brawler.

The Atlas, for example, could stay pretty cumbersome, but be buffed to brawl with massive Armor quirks. (Likely exceeding the current Annihilator, which IMO fits more into a "weapons platform" mech, similar to the Dire Wolf, Kodiak3, or Mauler, none of which NEED those armor quirks as badly as the atlas.) I realize that's probably against the general trend of "Less armor quirks," But where it's needed, it's needed, and the Atlas is an example of a mech where the lore, geometry, hardpoint locations, and slow speed require massive armor quirks to be effective. Just like it's OK to have mechs with outlier agility if it's properly balanced out, such as Mr. Gargles, The massive size, poor geometry, and slow speed/agility of the Atlas would be the counter-balance to it having outlier Armor.

[Chris Lowrey]

Daurock, on 11 September 2018 - 07:53 AM, said:

As to which mechs are the defined brawlers, That's a pretty good question to ask the devs, though I do think there's more than 1 way to create a quality Brawler.

For this particular point, we tend to differ to Battletech Lore when it comes to flavor/ role quirks provided we believe that giving them those said quirks would not complicate balance in other ways. As well as keeping in mind the overall place of the 'Mech against the greater game roster.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bud Crue, on 11 September 2018 - 07:13 AM, said:

I mean, based on current performance this comment would suggest that one should not be brawling in a Kodiak, Atlas, Mauler, and well an awful lot of slow twisting mechs, and yet brawling would seem to be what some of these mechs were in fact designed for (an Atlas with low slung weapons is not exactly a sniper, etc.).

Mauler and Kodiak weren't really designed for brawling (outside the Spirit Bear). That said, the Atlas was once upon a time more of a push mech than brawler because it was rare that it actually closed the gap before dying, the point was that it took so long to kill and had firepower that made it such a high priority to kill (the UAC20/MRM60 version would probably be better off than the old AC20/4ASRM6 build). Even with twisting more often than you not you were stripped by the time you closed in comp. Compared to the Spirit Bear and Gargoyle which have the speed to close the gap but worse hitboxes and/or less health overall (so they have similar issues).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Chris Lowrey, on 11 September 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

For this particular point, we tend to differ to Battletech Lore when it comes to flavor/ role quirks provided we believe that giving them those said quirks would not complicate balance in other ways. As well as keeping in mind the overall place of the 'Mech against the greater game roster.

Lore should be a good starting point, but probably one of my biggest grievances with the fact that so many variants get added for each mech and how mechs are chosen to get added is they are never SPECIFICALLY given a role or have a role carved out for them. It never seems like there is an actual attempt to find how a mech would fit into the game especially if that means it goes against lore (and that includes hardpoints). Not like other games that have similar setups (R6 Siege, Overwatch, really any "hero" based shooter).

In other words, mechs that get added rarely offer something "unique" to this game, it's why mechs like the BLanner, Hellspawn, and Vulcan probably floundered in sales or why you simply don't see them.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 September 2018 - 10:54 AM.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 September 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

Lore should be a good starting point, but probably one of my biggest grievances with the fact that so many variants get added for each mech and how mechs are chosen to get added is they are never SPECIFICALLY given a role or have a role carved out for them. It never seems like there is an actual attempt to find how a mech would fit into the game especially if that means it goes against lore (and that includes hardpoints). Not like other games that have similar setups (R6 Siege, Overwatch, really any "hero" based shooter).

In other words, mechs that get added rarely offer something "unique" to this game, it's why mechs like the BLanner, Hellspawn, and Vulcan probably floundered in sales or why you simply don't see them.

The Blanner does have the unique intended aspect of being a medium-class turbofast "cavalry" mech, it just really really sucks at that job.

Hellspawn I guess just lets you boat more missiles than other 45-ton robots already in the game, but it sucks at that just like the Blanner sucks at being a cavalry robot.

But yeah, in general a lot of the mechs added are feeling more and more generic and that's why it's getting harder and harder to get excited about new releases.

Edited by FupDup, 11 September 2018 - 11:04 AM.