151 replies to this topic

[Monkey Lover]

Wolfhound, Piranha,Mist Lynx,Locust, and Flea do not need buffed.

Vapor Eagle and Assassin should get nothing too but at least its very small.

Everything else looks great to me or at a good starting point.

[Pillowseller]

Thanks, generally I love what's going on. Sure, some top tiers got buffed and some d-tiers received less than that, but I assume incoming quirk pass will set things straight.

I will rage when my Centurion won't be as good as VGLs after the next patch.
(To be serious, I understand if Cent will have to wait for the rescale too.)

[justcallme A S H]

Pillowseller, on 22 June 2021 - 01:23 AM, said:

Thanks, generally I love what's going on. Sure, some top tiers got buffed and some d-tiers received less than that, but I assume incoming quirk pass will set things straight.

I will rage when my Centurion won't be as good as VGLs after the next patch.
(To be serious, I understand if Cent will have to wait for the rescale too.)

Which D tier mechs vs Top Tier were buffed in your eyes?

The Centurion was buffed heavily in MAY PATCH. The Vapor Eagle comparatively received very VERY LITTLE this patch (almost nothing).

Your statement of CN9 vs VGL is unfortunately incorrect.

[B0oN]

Maybe I play a little to see whats changed, but reading through the whole thing looks nice .
Good work so far, Cauldroneers, thanks !

[Dauntless Blint]

At first glance.
With the current tech tree It's hard to say given it could be changed/simplified/streamlined in the future.
Putting future proofing aside I would like to ask for more Torso Speed or Yaw on the KGC's to help spin up that huge disc chassis so attempting to twist is an option again.
Maybe by a value of 5 in both categories.
Same with the DireWolf but with Turn Rate and Yaw.

Night Star could have it's biceps shortened by the maximum allowed according to what the weapon arm yaw axis will allow. (Probably not much)

[jjm1]

I always thought the King Crab was worth running because it could twist a little bit faster and further. The IS assaults that have been brought up to parity with the King Crabs yaw speed/angle would be the final nail for reasons to use it wouldn't they.

[Dauntless Blint]

jjm1, on 22 June 2021 - 04:00 AM, said:

I always thought the King Crab was worth running because it could twist a little bit faster and further. The IS assaults that have been brought up to parity with the King Crabs yaw speed/angle would be the final nail for reasons to use it wouldn't they.

The hit box's are so big it's fragile but with rescale...just have to guesstimate It's hard to say, I'm trying to aim for pre skill tree values.

[Sjorpha]

justcallme A S H, on 21 June 2021 - 06:37 PM, said:

I have a question...

Back in 2017 did you have these complaints? If no - why now? I'd go back and check myself bit short on time the next couple days

(Remembering: values are basically going back to what they should have been as part of engine de-sync).

Back when mobilty was good, which is where the numbers are going - there was nowhere near the level of complaints, despite more players, about mech mobilty.

---------------------------

I really don't understand why there are a lot of "the values are no good", if a few years ago when the values were there - there wasn't the level of issue with them.

So why now, suddenly, is there issues? Is it just for the sake of disagreement?

I'd say you need a certain threshold of problems to see widespread complaints about an issue, so just because there wasn't lots of complaints about agility in 2017 doesn't mean the agility was correct on all the mechs. I think back then people also didn't think of chassis agility as a variable subject to change.

A bit similar to how there isn't a big discussion about changing the tonnage of weapons right now. We could argue perfectly well for changing the weight of many weapons, but since that variable hasn't been opened up as subject to change no one bothers to argue about it.

Given that agility is now on the table, and in the hands of members of the community no less, the current discussion should be about what agility values we want for each chassis right now, not about what agility they had 3 years ago. Of course if you happen to think the agility values of 2017 were all perfect for every mech, then you can model your changes to return to that state, but that would be because you really think those are the perfect values not just because it's what the values used to be.

What you can NOT do is argue that agility should be X just because it was X in 2017, or that someone shouldn't have an opinion now because they didn't have one back then. Those are both clear fallacies, and I think it's bad that you use that kind of arguments given that you're percieved as a representative of the cauldron on these forums. It's also not necesary as the proposed changes are mostly excellent and there is good arguments in their favour, no need to use bad arguments.

As far as 100 tonners I'd like some to be agile and some not according to the flavour and other balancing factor of the chassis. Just like with all the other mechs. If the dire wolf gets to be the king of firepower it doesn't need to be agile and so on. I agree with Elizander that being 15 tons heavier in itself doesn't motivate being half as agile, but the claim that Anni has no virtues over Basp is hyperbolic as the Anni wins the comparison in both firepower and durability. It's a reasonable question though, Anni isn't twice the firepower (we're talking 2UAC10,2UAC5 vs 1UAC10, 3UAC5 here...) and I'm not sure if it should be half as agile. It does have much better quirks though and being slow fits it's flavour so if the Anni was not strong enough I would personally look towards buffing the armour quirks back up before increasing agility. Bottom line is you need to look at the complete chassis and their place in the meta. Also these are both s-tier mechs, it's not like we have a case to call either of them weak not matter how we compare them.

Overall I consider the proposed changes pretty good, and I'm really grateful for all the hard work that went into it.

Edited by Sjorpha, 22 June 2021 - 04:51 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

My view - 2017 can and should be used as the baseline as that was proven to be solid for gameplay and there was very little in the way of complaints about mobilty. Of course some numbers pre desync could be better and the majority of issues arrive post desync in mid 2017.

Mobility is the same as weapons pass in that it ain't gonna be perfect from the get go.

I am simply asking to find out the viewpoint. Did people think mobilty was an issue then and why? Has that view therefore changed and if so why? etc etc. Helps paint a picture of what is going on. If the answer is as simple as 'I didn't have a problem with it then' that also is fair and also interesting at the same time.


For the most part based on posts I see - I appears that sometimes it's a simple case of people have completely forgotten how the game played when balance was reasonable, mechs were reasonable and fun quirks existed. Again it wasn't perfect, far from it - but it was a hell of a lot better than it was Feb 2021 and using 2017 as a base to be improved upon is a great starting point.


Even the Cauldron has found out - just because it looks good (or bad) on paper doesn't mean the same views will be had after playing a few hundred matches. We suspected things to of course need tweaks, albeit some users are completely impatient when it comes to that for whatever reason. I'm sure everyone would love to have it fixed last week

[Pillowseller]

justcallme A S H, on 22 June 2021 - 01:39 AM, said:

The Centurion was buffed heavily in MAY PATCH. The Vapor Eagle comparatively received very VERY LITTLE this patch (almost nothing).

Your statement of CN9 vs VGL is unfortunately incorrect.

Wait, weren't you the one telling me that CN9 isn't good enough even after the mobility buff? (I'm Turnspender at Reddit)
Probably I didn't make myself clear. I know Cent received way more buff than VGL gets this time, but even then VGL remains the way stronger choice, so I'm looking forward to the quirk (and rescale) pass which may bring Cent up as good as VGL.

Or... did things change and CN9 is considered on par with VGL right now? I hope I'm not that out of loop...

justcallme A S H, on 22 June 2021 - 01:39 AM, said:

Which D tier mechs vs Top Tier were buffed in your eyes?

On very superficial level, I felt weird that mechs like PIR, WLF and EBJ receiving more mobility buffs than mechs like HSN and UZL (non-6P especially).
But, I totally understand that the aim of this mobility patch alone is not to fill the power gap between mechs/variants, and I'm sure it will be hilarious a bad idea if you give mega mobility buff to HSN to make it a top tier.

I know you guys wouldn't miss anything I can point out!

[justcallme A S H]

Pillowseller, on 22 June 2021 - 05:14 AM, said:

Wait, weren't you the one telling me that CN9 isn't good enough even after the mobility buff? (I'm Turnspender at Reddit)

Probably I didn't make myself clear. I know Cent received way more buff than VGL gets this time, but even then VGL remains the way stronger choice, so I'm looking forward to the quirk (and rescale) pass which may bring Cent up as good as VGL.

Indeed. This thread is about Mobility Pass - I took your comments in relation to mobilty as a result

Centruion needs quirk pass which there is no ETA for and another discussion entirely. Next patch ain't gonna be quirks. As for rescale, big unknown right now, no indicator/update. Just have to wait for MW5 dust to settle and sort through stuff I guess for PGI

[Dauntless Blint]

Sjorpha, on 22 June 2021 - 04:14 AM, said:

I'd say you need a certain threshold of problems to see widespread complaints about an issue, so just because there wasn't lots of complaints about agility in 2017 doesn't mean the agility was correct on all the mechs. I think back then people also didn't think of chassis agility as a variable subject to change.

A bit similar to how there isn't a big discussion about changing the tonnage of weapons right now. We could argue perfectly well for changing the weight of many weapons, but since that variable hasn't been opened up as subject to change no one bothers to argue about it.

Given that agility is now on the table, and in the hands of members of the community no less, the current discussion should be about what agility values we want for each chassis right now, not about what agility they had 3 years ago. Of course if you happen to think the agility values of 2017 were all perfect for every mech, then you can model your changes to return to that state, but that would be because you really think those are the perfect values not just because it's what the values used to be.

What you can NOT do is argue that agility should be X just because it was X in 2017, or that someone shouldn't have an opinion now because they didn't have one back then. Those are both clear fallacies, and I think it's bad that you use that kind of arguments given that you're percieved as a representative of the cauldron on these forums. It's also not necesary as the proposed changes are mostly excellent and there is good arguments in their favour, no need to use bad arguments.

As far as 100 tonners I'd like some to be agile and some not according to the flavour and other balancing factor of the chassis. Just like with all the other mechs. If the dire wolf gets to be the king of firepower it doesn't need to be agile and so on. I agree with Elizander that being 15 tons heavier in itself doesn't motivate being half as agile, but the claim that Anni has no virtues over Basp is hyperbolic as the Anni wins the comparison in both firepower and durability. It's a reasonable question though, Anni isn't twice the firepower (we're talking 2UAC10,2UAC5 vs 1UAC10, 3UAC5 here...) and I'm not sure if it should be half as agile. It does have much better quirks though and being slow fits it's flavour so if the Anni was not strong enough I would personally look towards buffing the armour quirks back up before increasing agility. Bottom line is you need to look at the complete chassis and their place in the meta. Also these are both s-tier mechs, it's not like we have a case to call either of them weak not matter how we compare them.

Overall I consider the proposed changes pretty good, and I'm really grateful for all the hard work that went into it.

"Back then" there was no mobility complaints(generally) because we/every chassis had access to something like +15% Torso Speed, Top Speed, Yaw & Pitch and Anchor turn along with the streamlined rest. They nerfed the system because they thought it created a too bigger gap between "unskilled" builds/players and "skilled" builds/players but the real problem in my estimation was the match maker cannibalizing the player base by forcing half baked, loaded teams. We may have that closer to under control now.

To be fair I think they were also trying to adjust for players that played the grind or 3 unskilled mechs at a time to batch unlock that chassis skills/upgrades against the players who had already grinded and skilled their favorite chassis and used it/them almost exclusively but they didn't seem to see that it should be irrelevant as match maker should compensate simply on match results, which as we know...nothing more to be said on MM.
(I think they were trying to change player behavior over player experience to play more mechs and drive sales instead of what you think is fun and when they realized all we were left with was the redundant/defunct nerf of the original skill system in exchange for gratefully only having to grind one mech at a time)
So they almost got it right in my opinion.

A lot of players checked out here like myself originally but it seems some are back.

Edited by Dauntless Blint, 22 June 2021 - 06:52 AM.

[Grus]

Im just so happy that a bunch of clan assault mechs i use have 90° or close to it yaw now.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Wow - am I reading this wrong, or did all the best performing lights just get yet another huge boost in mobility, especially when considering they are still seen as being the worst offenders for having over performance on dps because of their size and potential loadouts along with their ability to disappear under an assault's field of view (additional figures for pitch will do very little if the light is out turning you even easier than before)?

[Grus]

PeppaPig, on 22 June 2021 - 07:02 AM, said:

Wow - am I reading this wrong, or did all the best performing lights just get yet another huge boost in mobility, especially when considering they are still seen as being the worst offenders for having over performance on dps because of their size and potential loadouts along with their ability to disappear under an assault's field of view (additional figures for pitch will do very little if the light is out turning you even easier than before)?

My commando didn't really get touched. So.... meh?

[Hal Greaves]

mist lynx and wolfhound buffs make me happy in the pants, along with the crab buffs, tempting me to return

[Nightbird]

I like most of what I see, thank you for updates to lights Dario, some remaining comments:

1. Buffs to Mauler is too low, it has worse hitboxes and lower mounts than the Cyclops. It has better weapon quirks but it needs to be close to the Cyclops to perform.

2. Buffs to Madcat MKII and Blood Asp is too high, it's getting buffed a larger % than far worse mechs

3. King crab, almost no buffs, wasn't aware this was an uber mech

4. Fafnir WR, Marauder II 4HP, Anni MB, WTF twist speed. There are at least equally bad variants in the chassis that could use a buff.

5. Battlemasters other than BLR-1G could use some more differentiation (see Awesomes)

6. Thanatos shouldn't be more agile than Marauder, being more top heavy and having ECM and JJs universally

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Nightbird, on 22 June 2021 - 09:30 AM, said:

3. King crab, almost no buffs, wasn't aware this was an uber mech

Never any love for my bb... *sob*

**** hitbox and you gotta work for it, but it'll never not be my main ride (AFTER THE VTR-9S(C) and TBR-C BRAWLERS GOT **** ON INTO OBLIVION).

[LordBraxton]

More mobility is good, but this seems like a bunch of arbitrary decisions. Overperformers are getting similar buffs as chassis that are never picked. You would think only underperformers would get huge buffs.

Mechs like the Banshee, Awesome, should have heavy tier mobility to make up for their hip level hardpoints.

Better yet, undo engine desync, but set base values as a separate modifier. A 400xl assault should dance rings around a 300 engine assault, not just beat it in a drag race. Set clan mechs as a worse base modifier as they get better engines etc.

[R Valentine]

Nightbird, on 22 June 2021 - 09:30 AM, said:

I like most of what I see, thank you for updates to lights Dario, some remaining comments:

1. Buffs to Mauler is too low, it has worse hitboxes and lower mounts than the Cyclops. It has better weapon quirks but it needs to be close to the Cyclops to perform.

2. Buffs to Madcat MKII and Blood Asp is too high, it's getting buffed a larger % than far worse mechs

3. King crab, almost no buffs, wasn't aware this was an uber mech

4. Fafnir WR, Marauder II 4HP, Anni MB, WTF twist speed. There are at least equally bad variants in the chassis that could use a buff.

5. Battlemasters other than BLR-1G could use some more differentiation (see Awesomes)

6. Thanatos shouldn't be more agile than Marauder, being more top heavy and having ECM and JJs universally

I don't think you can save chassis like the Mauler and the Awesome without quirks. Hitboxes can't be tuned with mobility unless it's absolutely absurd. The Mad Cat and Blood Asp received relatively large buffs because clan mechs in general are extremely immobile. They're like swimming through wet cement. Their percentage based buffs are large to compensate. I agree with the other points, though.