89 replies to this topic

[Bagheera]

Point of fact:

The following mechs are all limited by netcode to the same top speed regardless of their theoretical max engine rating:

Commando (see below)
Jenner
Raven* (see below)
Cicada*
Spider
CN9-D
Upcoming TBT-<variant with stock 300xl>


... and anything else that could theoretically go faster than 149 or whatever the netcode speed wall works out to be.

* - I think these have variants where their top speed is limited by engine size before netcode speed wall kicks in.


Edit: Updated the above list with corrections as quoted below:

Sandslice, on 15 January 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

The regular 1.4 rule catches the Commando and Raven before they can hit the 8.5 netcode cap; only the Jenner, Cicada, and Spider are being held back by it. Basically, anything with a stock engine ratio of at least 7 (or a stock speed of over 110, if you want to think of it that way.)

Crossed out the two 50 tonners. IIRC their stock 6/9 speed puts them under the threshold that Sandslice describes.

Edited by Bagheera, 15 January 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[Kunae]

Prosperity Park, on 15 January 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

The removal of collisions was not "arbitrary," people. When it's returned, everyone who's not a leghumper will have improved their piloting and gunnery skills as a result of it's temporary removal. Learning how to shoot them without knockdown has only made us stronger... Anyways, I have a Founder's Jenner... and I like the Jenner F, but I can't personally justify the Jenner K simply for a Module Slot. I don't have enough modules to make it worth it. In my personal opinion, I'd like to see an ECM Jenner in the form of a Jenner 7K with reduced hardpoints or reduced JJ capacity.

Sorry, but it was arbitrary. They removed it without having a replacement. already in testing. And many of us have seen the "Goons picking on Paul" vid... I am sure that had nothing to do with anything.

Why reduce anything? The Commando, Cicada and DDC didn't have anything reduced to have ECM put on.

[Kaldor]

Prosperity Park, on 15 January 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

The removal of collisions was not "arbitrary," people. When it's returned, everyone who's not a leghumper will have improved their piloting and gunnery skills as a result of it's temporary removal. Learning how to shoot them without knockdown has only made us stronger... Anyways, I have a Founder's Jenner... and I like the Jenner F, but I can't personally justify the Jenner K simply for a Module Slot. I don't have enough modules to make it worth it. In my personal opinion, I'd like to see an ECM Jenner in the form of a Jenner 7K with reduced hardpoints or reduced JJ capacity.

Did you really have a problem with knockdowns? I know I didnt and Im betting most of the community back at that time did not either. It was a valid tactic. It forced people to play with some skill or develop skill. It was a bad decision. People make bad decisions all the time. All we can hope for is the return of the knockdown.

Josef Nader, on 15 January 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

The Jenner is -still- the best combat chassis in the light mechs. ECM has become FotM, but no Raven can match a Jenner for firepower, they move at the same speed and have the same armor. The Jenner canonical role is as a guerrilla fighter and harrasser, a role it still excels at. The Raven is oriented towards a scout role far more than the Jenner is. All of the bad light pilots have jumped onto Ravens, which is why you see them everywhere. I still see plenty of Jenners, and they're still doing very well from what I've seen.

In an even fight the Jenner is a tough mech, but against an ECM light using SSRMs they are pretty much crap. Scout role my arse, all the lights go the same speed. There is no defining role.

[Josef Nader]

Tabrias07, on 15 January 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

You let a Raven stand still and get away?

I'm with him on that. Raven hit boxes are bugged up the butt. I've hit them with everything from AC20s to 4 SRM6s while they were standing stock still and their armor hasn't even flashed. It's -only- the Ravens I have this trouble with, as the other lights pop like soap bubbles when I hit them with the same stuff. It's all rather frustrating.

Kaldor, on 15 January 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

In an even fight the Jenner is a tough mech, but against an ECM light using SSRMs they are pretty much crap. Scout role my arse, all the lights go the same speed. There is no defining role.

Use twin SRM4s. If you can get behind a raven and hit him with those, they're much more effective than SSRMs. Plus, you can dodge and break missile locks with a Jenner. The most important part of dueling ECM Ravens is to not give them a chance to establish that lock. I'm not saying it's easy, but on a competitive level the snap-firing twin SRM4s with good aim will beat out the SSRMs that only fire as long as you maintain LoS. Again, I think Raven hitboxes are bugged, but we'll see. If they get fixed, I think we'll see a drastic curbing in the popularity of the Raven.

Edited by Josef Nader, 15 January 2013 - 12:33 PM.

[Asakara]

Josef Nader, on 15 January 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

The Jenner is -still- the best combat chassis in the light mechs. ECM has become FotM, but no Raven can match a Jenner for firepower, they move at the same speed and have the same armor. The Jenner canonical role is as a guerrilla fighter and harrasser, a role it still excels at. The Raven is oriented towards a scout role far more than the Jenner is.

All of the bad light pilots have jumped onto Ravens, which is why you see them everywhere. I still see plenty of Jenners, and they're still doing very well from what I've seen.

Going for pure damage while maintaining some speed a Raven 3L can do an alpha of 45 (2 SRM6s + 3 MLs). The Jenner D (not the inferior K) can do an alpha of 40 (2 SRM4s + 4 MLs).

[Kaldor]

Tabrias07, on 15 January 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

You let a Raven stand still and get away?

Yeah, way to miss the point....

[Felicitatem Parco]

Kunae, on 15 January 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Sorry, but it was arbitrary. They removed it without having a replacement. already in testing. And many of us have seen the "Goons picking on Paul" vid... I am sure that had nothing to do with anything.

The term "arbitrary" can mean two things; either it's a term for authoritative action, or a term for taking action without holding regard for need or consequences.

They arbitrarily removed collisions by virtue of the first meaning. A non-technically-correct, but conversationally-sound way to explain it is to liken the knockdown rubberbanding effect to the problem with desynchronized hitboxes and Mech Models that took place whne a Mech shutdown while in motion. They removed a "knockdown" feature that was causing server/client mismatch .

It sounds like a lot of people don't even remember back when there were no collisions at all, and Mechs just phased through eachother. Back in Summer there were no collisions. Then they introduced knockdowns. Then they introduced collisions. Then they removed knockdowns because a replacement feature (collisions) had already been introduced and would serve as a place-holder until "knockdowns" get reintroduced.

And I'd still like an ECM Jenner K, and if they feel the need to manipulate hardpoints or JJ mounts then I'd still be very accepting of it.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 15 January 2013 - 12:33 PM.

[Tabrias07]

Josef Nader, on 15 January 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'm with him on that. Raven hit boxes are bugged up the butt. I've hit them with everything from AC20s to 4 SRM6s while they were standing stock still and their armor hasn't even flashed. It's -only- the Ravens I have this trouble with, as the other lights pop like soap bubbles when I hit them with the same stuff. It's all rather frustrating.

I don't think I've had this happen, but I may have simply not noticed.

Prosperity Park, on 15 January 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

It sounds like a lot of people don't even remember back when there were no collisions at all, and Mechs just phased through eachother. Back in Summer there were no collisions. Then they introduced knockdowns. Then they introduced collisions. Then they removed knockdowns because a replacement feature (collisions) had already been introduced and would serve as a place-holder until "knockdowns" get reintroduced.

I always got the feeling they removed it so as to not scare off new players, cause that **** was annoying.

Edited by Tabrias07, 15 January 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[Vulix]

I think they should stop touching light mechs all together until netcode is fixed and knockdowns are reimplemented. It's bad to balance lights around the current game because there will be some big changes.

That being said, the Jenner is the most useless light mech. There is just no reason to run it if you can run another light with ECM. I run my Raven 3L with ECM, 2 streaks, and an ERPPC. Much better than any Jenner right now

[Havyek]

Kunae, on 15 January 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

The Jenner is not faster, or if so, it's marginal.(like 1-2kph)

You obviously haven't played a Jenner since the JJ nerf.



Could you tell me please... have you played a Jenner lately? And how many Jenners have you seen around, in the last month?

JJs didn't get nerfed. They were fixed to work like they were supposed to.

Have I played a Jenner recently? The other night. I'm still not sure whether I want to use SRM4s or SSRM2s though. SSRMs suck when you run into ECM but the SRM4s require that you hug someone to do good consistent damage, though watching a Commando disintegrate when hit is awesome!

So to weigh in, NO Jenners do not need an ECM variant.

[Josef Nader]

Asakara, on 15 January 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Going for pure damage while maintaining some speed a Raven 3L can do an alpha of 45 (2 SRM6s + 3 MLs). The Jenner D (not the inferior K) can do an alpha of 40 (2 SRM4s + 4 MLs).

One of those SRM6s is coming from a useless NARC tube, while the Jenner D's 8 SRMs fly out all at once. Trust me, on a functional level the Raven only has a single SRM6 with 3 tons of wasted weapon. It's the reason people use SSRMs, as you don't notice the "one at a time" thing as much with an SSRM.

Even the Jenner K is better than the 3L, as it can fit the same SRM6 with an additional MLas. Trust me, there's a damn good reason you don't see any twin SRM6 Ravens. It just doesn't work.

[Splinters]

I think a Jenner with ECM is possible, just give it 2 laser hardpoints, 1 missle hardpoint, JJs, with 2 module slots and I think it will be a viable version. I think the idea of sticking with canon mechs is behind us so at this point, just make a few extra variants so this game is interesting instead of trying to shoe-horn a TT game into a sim.

-S

Edited by Splinters, 15 January 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[Kaldor]

Prosperity Park, on 15 January 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

The term "arbitrary" can mean two things; either it's a term for authoritative action, or a term for taking action without holding regard for need or consequences.

There, I fixed it for you. The collision mechanic is a half a_s solution that only created more problems in the end.

Tabrias07, on 15 January 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

I don't think I've had this happen, but I may have simply not noticed.

Yeah, its not cool as I like to play everything with different kinds of builds. Ive had the best luck just using ASRM6s from my SRMCat but Ive even seen them walk away after taking an alpha that will kill most mechs 60 ton and under in a single shot. And its not like it only has happened once, it seems to happen a little too often.

[Asakara]

Josef Nader, on 15 January 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

One of those SRM6s is coming from a useless NARC tube, while the Jenner D's 8 SRMs fly out all at once. Trust me, on a functional level the Raven only has a single SRM6 with 3 tons of wasted weapon. It's the reason people use SSRMs, as you don't notice the "one at a time" thing as much with an SSRM.

Even the Jenner K is better than the 3L, as it can fit the same SRM6 with an additional MLas. Trust me, there's a damn good reason you don't see any twin SRM6 Ravens. It just doesn't work.

I do see 2 SRM6 Ravens out there at times, normally hunting heavies and assaults.

I do not use SSRMs on my Raven because the NARC tube makes an SRM6 into a missile machine gun. I use them because they are the best for hunting other lights at this time.

Also, I completely disagree that the Jenner K without ECM is better than the Raven 3L with ECM.

But each to their own.

[Sandslice]

M A L I C E, on 15 January 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Jenner is still faster. Jenner is the more heavily armed and armored. Jenner still has very capable jump capability.

Fair mechs are fair.

Because of weird rounding around the 8.5 cap, it breaks down this way.

-Commando: 8.4 - gets ECM + 3 missile hps.
-Raven: 8.43 - gets ECM + 3 energy hps + 2 missile hps
-Spider: 8.5, constrained from 11.33, ECM + 3 energy hps.
-Jenner: 8.57, constrained from 9.86, no ECM.
-Cicada: 8.5 (40*8.5,) constrained from 10, ECM + 4 energy hps + 1 ballistic hp. If over-400 engines were feasible, the Cicada's true cap would be 10.5; but 420 engines aren't available in standard BT play, and a 420 XLE would weigh 44.5 tons in MWO terms. So yeah!

Not commenting on the feasibility of engine capping in the latter three, only where the limits actually lie.

The Jenner's current "speed advantage" is 1.27kph speed-tweaked. For reference, not even 25.6kph (which is what 9.86 gives over 8.4) is enough to disengage a Streak hero in a reasonable time frame.

Nor does the Jenner-K have a significant firepower advantage over the Craven, because of the auto-hit nature of Streaks.

Edited by Sandslice, 15 January 2013 - 12:50 PM.

[Kunae]

BDU Havoc, on 15 January 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

JJs didn't get nerfed. They were fixed to work like they were supposed to.

They were nerfed. Did they work as well as they did pre-patch? No? Then they were nerfed.

As I noted, the 1->5 nerf was expected. The severe reduction in performance was a nerf. Whatever rationalizations are put out there, to "justify" it, are just that.

[Tabrias07]

Kunae, on 15 January 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

They were nerfed. Did they work as well as they did pre-patch? No? Then they were nerfed.

As I noted, the 1->5 nerf was expected. The severe reduction in performance was a nerf. Whatever rationalizations are put out there, to "justify" it, are just that.

That's a fix, not a nerf.

[Kunae]

Tabrias07, on 15 January 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

That's a fix, not a nerf.

^ And that's semantics.

[Josef Nader]

Asakara, on 15 January 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Also, I completely disagree that the Jenner K without ECM is better than the Raven 3L with ECM.

But each to their own.

Better for damage output than the 3L. I should have been clear. I agree that ECM is better than an extra laser, but every variant of the Jenner is a just plain better damage chassis than the Raven.

[Tabrias07]

Kunae, on 15 January 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

^ And that's semantics.

They were broken and very much not working as intended before. It made no difference how many you carried, you got the same lift.