248 replies to this topic

[Beefsweat]

teeth_03, on May 05 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

I agree with the guy who said the armor should be increased by 10% for all mechs instead of a flat number. The C class mechs clearly need a buff and that would help out a lot.

Scapes, on May 03 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Designer's Note: We wanted to increase time-to-kill (TTK) for all mechs and decided on a flat rate over a percentage. With a too much of a percentage, trying to kill a Type-C mechs would push overheating limits. If we made the percentage too small, Type-A mechs TTK will still be too short. We'll be watching for player feedback and gameplay data to determine if this first step towards a TTK sweet spot is in need of tweaking in future patches.

[ShadowWarg]

teeth_03, on May 05 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

I agree with the guy who said the armor should be increased by 10% for all mechs instead of a flat number. The C class mechs clearly need a buff and that would help out a lot.

Umbre, on May 04 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

If you give them a 10% increase each, rather than a flat increase you get this:

A: 550
B: 743 (technically 742.5, but the game rounds up)
C: 935

Those numbers could easily become:

A: 550
B: 740
C: 930

Notice how there's actually a visible pattern_ You still get an equal increase of health (a difference of 190) between the classes.

Supposedly running into heat problems when trying to kill a C class is a bad thing. I think it's actually a step in the right direction. Players need to be encouraged to manage their heat generation effectively, and I know this is an important game mechanic. Notice how the CR-T given to every player has an ability that reduces heat generated. This was intended to give new players who haven't quite figured out heat management, a fighting chance. Please try to promote intelligent play, where players have to think about and deal with all the risks and consequences.

Why use such an arbitrary number like 190_ It should be 200
A:550
B:750
C:950

Edited by ShadowWarg, May 05 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Umbre]

ShadowWarg, on May 05 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Why use such an arbitrary number like 190_ It should be 200
A:550 = 10% increase
B:750 = 11.1% increase
C:950 = 11.7% increase

That's just another flat increase, resulting in uneven health buffs.

I get that having perfect having them all spaced apart by a perfect 200 looks pretty, but game balance should be the priority. Besides, I think having the sort of "off" numbers gives them a bit more character.

Edited by Umbre, May 05 2013 - 10:21 AM.

[_Hex_]

Numbers... Actual numbers... You can expect at least a $10 purchase from me soon...

[Phos]

C classes need a buff but I think a more useful ability would be the preferable way to go about it.

[ShadowWarg]

Umbre, on May 05 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

ShadowWarg, on May 05 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Why use such an arbitrary number like 190_ It should be 200
A:550 = 10% increase
B:750 = 11.1% increase
C:950 = 11.7% increase

That's just another flat increase, resulting in uneven health buffs.

I get that having perfect having them all spaced apart by a perfect 200 looks pretty, but game balance should be the priority. Besides, I think having the sort of "off" numbers gives them a bit more character.

Fine,

A:550
B:745
C:940

And that's my final offer.

Besides with the Type-A's speed they don't really need a buff on the same level as the Type-C imo.

[Jonzay]

CTalon, on May 04 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

(sucking the health out of you as they repair while hopping around, while also firing their RPR at you)

This rustled my jimmies. Direct combat technicians are the worst technicians. The Redox has much more dps overall, since it allows your teammates to hurt the enemy more than the damage from the RPR contributes.

[AUTOAL]

WHAT？ +50HP？？！！

[irishroy]

Phos, on May 03 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Silk_Sk, on May 03 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

Guys! Look! Numbers...

If this is meant to be a response to me, then 2/10 get better at trolling.

he's not trolling.
he's answering with pics

[ropefish]

i'm still wondering about the prestige weapon for the tech and also the "coming soon mech avatars"
which have been up for months,

[m3talc0re]

So lemme get this straight... No Technician changes, but you further decrease the effectiveness of burst damage (which is needed to overcome Techs)_ Who comes up with this fuzzy bunny_

[ShadowWarg]

How is the effectiveness of burst damage decreased_ They said nothing about weapon changes or tweaks. And you don't need burst to over take a tech, it just makes taking them out faster (like with any mech)

Edited by ShadowWarg, May 06 2013 - 11:56 AM.

[Xuande]

I'm not ok with the changes to blockade and repair charge. The point of the repair charge is to get you back into the fight asap. Other than those, this looks like a great patch.

P.S. Why the FRAK would you release the patch the day before I have a test and final project due_! WHY_! Goddamnit, it's hard enough to study as it is.

Edited by Xuande, May 06 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[FussyBadger]

Xuande, on May 06 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

I'm not ok with the changes to blockade and repair charge. The point of the repair charge is to get you back into the fight asap. Other than those, this looks like a great patch.

P.S. Why the FRAK would you release the patch the day before I have a test and final project due_! WHY_! Goddamnit, it's hard enough to study as it is.

Perhaps the devs prefer to see it used to expedite the repair process on a heavily damaged mech. In that situation, the slower speed (depending on how slow) might not be noticeable. On the other hand, it would be less effective for players who use it as a midfight repair-without-repariing healing anchor / 'roid injection.

[Xuande]

Gookywun, on May 04 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Step in the right direction imo. Would've liked to have seen INDIVIDUAL armour gains on each class but meh, let's see how this plays out.
Detonator nerf is good but should just be removed from the game.
Shield buff_ Not liking the sound of that, it's already being abused.
No EOC nerf_ shame.

Shield being abused_ More like actually being used properly. It was near useless pre-tech patch.

@FussyBadger Then I guess We'll see what it's like on my Bruiser, CR-T, Tech, and Raider. Mid fight healing has always been unreliable in the first place. Standing still means death.

Edited by Xuande, May 06 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[OdinTheWise]

I am surprised that facility is done allready. Well done sirs

[Scapes]

Added:

• TOW Missile and Detonator projectiles will no longer pass through Type-C mechs in turret mode.

[OdinTheWise]

Scapes, on May 06 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Added:

• TOW Missile and Detonator projectiles will no longer pass through Type-C mechs in turret mode.

This actually explains a lot lol, when will the turret mode hit boxes get fixed

[tman7919]

Scapes, on May 06 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Added:

• TOW Missile and Detonator projectiles will no longer pass through Type-C mechs in turret mode.

hmmm... an addition. THANK YOU!

[AsianJoyKiller]

Xuande, on May 06 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Gookywun, on May 04 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

Step in the right direction imo. Would've liked to have seen INDIVIDUAL armour gains on each class but meh, let's see how this plays out.
Detonator nerf is good but should just be removed from the game.
Shield buff_ Not liking the sound of that, it's already being abused.
No EOC nerf_ shame.

Shield being abused_ More like actually being used properly. It was near useless pre-tech patch.

@FussyBadger Then I guess We'll see what it's like on my Bruiser, CR-T, Tech, and Raider. Mid fight healing has always been unreliable in the first place. Standing still means death.

The shield was being used properly before, but it was just an inferior item to Repair Charges.
Now it's limited invulnerability, which is pretty Goddamn useful, which is why Gooky is probably saying it's being abused.

Also, mid-fight healing was only unpredictable previously if you didn't know where or when to drop your charges. As long as you didn't drop them out of cover, or let yourself get to 1-shot health, you'd were fine.