89 replies to this topic

[Ninjaman999]

Having an Anti-emp system would be silly if you ask me. Everyone would then just use EMP and anti-emp as a setup and the rest of the options would get neglected. I would suggest playing better and learning your surroundings faster. If you know the area, you can quickly escape and use the corners to your advantage and suprise the pursuer.
And to whoever suggested shortening the emp duration, that would make it pretty useless since it would only last for a second or two and you used an entire slot as a troll effort.

[killyg]

Beemann, on October 29 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

It would only emphasize mobility if you're trying to use it offensively, it'd just be another role for the A-classes to fill, a self-bomber of sorts.  They don't individually get any benefit from it anyways since the EMP radius will ALWAYS include the user.  Defensively your opponent comes to you, in which case a C-class will be able to use it to the same effect as an A-class.

But A classes can do both, and don't need to move into EMP-able range to be effective
As well, we'd have to have a different radius for the 3 classes anyway, since C's are much larger than A mechs and would eat a large portion of their own radius... but that's another issue

and the C-class can do things that A-class can't do, and there's nothing wrong with that.  For example I can argue that C-classes benefit more from deployed items because they can afford to hang around their deployments for longer while taking a punishment.  That doesn't suddenly make deployed items unbalanced when a C-class use it.

Mobility renders inherent advantages just as extra health does, they don't always have to intersect, that's why different weight classes exist.  Whether mobility is overall more useful than tanking is debatable, but it's a separate discussion.  It seems to me that you're trying to take weight classes out of the equation for every item, which I don't think is the right way to go.  Some builds leverage certain items more effectively than other, that's the whole point of build customization.

Edited by killyg, October 29 2012 - 03:36 PM.

[Luftwaffle]

Regarding the EMP being harsher on Bs and Cs than A mechs....
what if EMPs lasted 5 seconds for As, 4 seconds for Bs, and 3 seconds for Cs_

[killyg]

Luftwaffle, on October 29 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Regarding the EMP being harsher on Bs and Cs than A mechs....
what if EMPs lasted 5 seconds for As, 4 seconds for Bs, and 3 seconds for Cs_

That only patches the surface symptom, but doesn’t address the root problem.  The issue with EMP right now is that it’s a fight ender.  Against similar skill leveled opponent, if you land an EMP, the fight’s over.  They might not be dead while their systems are out, but when they EMP wears off they’ll be at a significant health and fuel disadvantages.  It’s extremely difficult to come back from that unless some teammate or opportunistic bastard comes in and save your bacon.

At least that’s what I’ve observed over the weekend.  If I’m fighting against skilled players, it usually boiled down who landed that EMP first.

Hence my original suggestion of making EMP always affect the user so it can’t be used as such an powerful offensive tool.

Edited by killyg, October 29 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Beemann, on October 29 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

It would only emphasize mobility if you're trying to use it offensively, it'd just be another role for the A-classes to fill, a self-bomber of sorts.  They don't individually get any benefit from it anyways since the EMP radius will ALWAYS include the user.  Defensively your opponent comes to you, in which case a C-class will be able to use it to the same effect as an A-class.

But A classes can do both, and don't need to move into EMP-able range to be effective
As well, we'd have to have a different radius for the 3 classes anyway, since C's are much larger than A mechs and would eat a large portion of their own radius... but that's another issue

and the C-class can do things that A-class can't do, and there's nothing wrong with that.  For example I can argue that C-classes benefit more from deployed items because they can afford to hang around their deployments for longer while taking a punishment.  That doesn't suddenly make deployed items unbalanced when a C-class use it.

Mobility renders inherent advantages just as extra health does, they don't always have to intersect, that's why different weight classes exist.  Whether mobility is overall more useful than tanking is debatable, but it's a separate discussion.  It seems to me that you're trying to take weight classes out of the equation for every item, which I don't think is the right way to go.  Some builds leverage certain items more effectively than other, that's the whole point of build customization.

An A-class can hang around their deployed items as easily as any other, they just need to use mobility rather than health to mitigate damage.

Tell me, if the EMP was removed and replaced with an item that stopped fuel regen, would you considered that balanced_

[Beemann]

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

and the C-class can do things that A-class can't do, and there's nothing wrong with that.  For example I can argue that C-classes benefit more from deployed items because they can afford to hang around their deployments for longer while taking a punishment.  That doesn't suddenly make deployed items unbalanced when a C-class use it.

I feel as though you're now making things up
You don't need to hang around deployables at all... in fact they're great for flanking (which is an A mech advantage)

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Mobility renders inherent advantages just as extra health does, they don't always have to intersect, hence the different weight classes.  Whether mobility is overall more useful than tanking is debatable, but it's a separate discussion.  It seems to me that you're trying to take weight classes of the equation for every item, which I don't think is the right way to go.  Some builds leverage certain items more effectively than other, that's the whole point of build customization.

Except that's just a cop-out supported by.. well... information that is blatantly untrue (your point above about turrets)
Health and mobility should be roughly even with balanced maps, and for the most part they ARE
EXCEPT when it comes to a single item, at which point the discrepancy becomes obvious in favour of the lighter mech
That is absolutely not how balance works

Luftwaffle, on October 29 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

Regarding the EMP being harsher on Bs and Cs than A mechs....
what if EMPs lasted 5 seconds for As, 4 seconds for Bs, and 3 seconds for Cs_

Well as a similar example, what about something that disabled boosting with the same idea behind it_ Or an ability that slowed everyone within an AOE radius for similar amounts of time_
Would you consider it acceptable to force A's to have to use their health and firepower against that of a C mech for 3 seconds_

It's also something that would have to very clearly be explained to newbies, and distinctions between lights and mediums would have to be made more clear

[killyg]

AsianJoyKiller, on October 29 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Beemann, on October 29 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

It would only emphasize mobility if you're trying to use it offensively, it'd just be another role for the A-classes to fill, a self-bomber of sorts.  They don't individually get any benefit from it anyways since the EMP radius will ALWAYS include the user.  Defensively your opponent comes to you, in which case a C-class will be able to use it to the same effect as an A-class.

But A classes can do both, and don't need to move into EMP-able range to be effective
As well, we'd have to have a different radius for the 3 classes anyway, since C's are much larger than A mechs and would eat a large portion of their own radius... but that's another issue

and the C-class can do things that A-class can't do, and there's nothing wrong with that.  For example I can argue that C-classes benefit more from deployed items because they can afford to hang around their deployments for longer while taking a punishment.  That doesn't suddenly make deployed items unbalanced when a C-class use it.

Mobility renders inherent advantages just as extra health does, they don't always have to intersect, that's why different weight classes exist.  Whether mobility is overall more useful than tanking is debatable, but it's a separate discussion.  It seems to me that you're trying to take weight classes out of the equation for every item, which I don't think is the right way to go.  Some builds leverage certain items more effectively than other, that's the whole point of build customization.

An A-class can hang around their deployed items as easily as any other, they just need to use mobility rather than health to mitigate damage.

Tell me, if the EMP was removed and replaced with an item that stopped fuel regen, would you considered that balanced_

Like I said, whether mobility is more useful than tanking in the current state of the game is debatable.  The spirit of my argument was that different weight classes have different roles and excel at different things, and there’s nothing wrong with one item being more useful to one build over another.

Fundamentally, Hawken is a class-based game.  In that sense the homogenization of classes in the name of balance only serves to erode the unique identity of any given class.  If everyone thinks that C-classes are at a severe disadvantage right now because its lack of mobility, then what needs to happen is for us to take a look at why C-classes aren’t filling their roles and fix that (aka turret modes need to do their job), instead of trying put every class on equal ground in every situation.

The purpose of my suggested change to EMP was to fix the egregious issue at hand, which is people getting ganked HARD in 1v1 or 1v2 because they EMPs are flying everywhere.  At the same time, I wanted to preserve the other useful functions that EMP has.

But to answer your question, yes I would consider your change balanced if I was only to look at EMP independently.  It would just mean that EMP serves a different role than its current implementation, a role of hunting down runners opposed to ganking/defense.  And if a change like that that tips C-classes over A-classes, then go back and look at what A-class need to bring balance back to the scale.

Edited by killyg, October 29 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Mogisback]

Once emp'ed you are suppose to run and cover, dont forget that when you get emp'ed at close range there is a good chance it will affect both you and your opponent, useful tool but not OP

[Rotaken]

Phos, on October 28 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Shoot feet get kill.  Hey, going to cover doesn't help if you're already in cover (such as being under one of the AA towers) and can't really move.  

Quote

It's way for inexperienced pilots to take out experienced pilots and escape battles.

More experienced pilots are just going to use it to gain an even bigger advantage.  The "noob tube" design concept is flawed.

Edit: Talking lore for a moment, there's a perfect counter for EMP that already exists today: any conductive material.  That's right, EMP cannot penetrate into an enclosure of metal, the mechs are already faraday cages and would thus be immune to EMP.

Experienced players can always use items, weapons, etc etc more effectively it's just that. No way to counter it except to make k/d restricted servers and even then some would dominate.

[Beemann]

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Like I said, whether mobility is more useful than tanking in the current state of the game is debatable.  The spirit of my argument was that different weight classes have different roles and excel at different things, and there’s nothing wrong with one item being more useful to one build over another.

Except none of them excel with an already tremendously useful item in the way that A mechs excel with EMP

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Fundamentally, Hawken is a class-based game.  In that sense the homogenization of classes in the name of balance only serves to erode the unique identity of any given class.  If everyone thinks that C-classes are at a severe disadvantage right now because its lack of mobility, then what needs to happen is for us to take a look at why C-classes aren’t filling their roles and fix that (aka turret modes need to do their job), instead of trying put every class on equal ground in every situation.

I don't see how rebalancing something that forces everyone to play based on mobility and doesn't have a health-centric equivalent is homogenization. You're not actually providing a lot of evidence to back the assertions you're making here
A C mech's role isn't to stand still. You're meant to get in people's faces and throw your weight around. That is a style based around pushing your firepower and health to the forefront
Turret mode is bad because it gives too little health and firepower for the amount of damage you're guaranteed to take in with it. Your survivability LOWERS with turret mode.
EMP on the other hand, forces the C mechs to try to play evasive... as the biggest and slowest mech
Again, you've yet to show how any other item works in this manner

killyg, on October 29 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

The purpose of my suggested change to EMP was to fix the egregious issue at hand, which is people getting ganked HARD in 1v1 or 1v2 because they EMPs are flying everywhere.  At the same time, I wanted to preserve the other useful functions that EMP has.

Except the C mech issue is a function of the current ganking problem. Not only is it awful to have to fight against the EMP, but it's even WORSE when not everyone is hurt equally by it

Rotaken, on October 29 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

Experienced players can always use items, weapons, etc etc more effectively it's just that. No way to counter it except to make k/d restricted servers and even then some would dominate.

Except no other item has the same massive effect EMP does, and the defence of that effect was something concerning newbie use of it
Should my HEAT cannon be buffed because newbies are often bad with that gun too_

Edited by Beemann, October 29 2012 - 04:12 PM.