Post is pinned.Post has attachment
Now featuring a build by the combined input of our users

Post has attachment
GUYS- From the AMA today
"My thinking on TX-1/LMH is that it is in conflict with paint gun. We had this issue while developing Full Spectrum Combat: we can't distinguish armor tiewrs by color any more, and texture isn't enough (unless it's overdone). Say, TX-1 had that nice texture, but being colored it was too hard to notice. Yet, if I think about fulfilling that niche, I'd say that what we need is Helium rework into something like Anti Gravity Cube. Because LMH is actually about "I can choose to pay more CPU for better armor". So if current armor is Heavy type for 1 CPU and say Light armor could be like 3 CPU, same health but light - it's much easier to achieve the same with Anti Gravity Cube. You pay some extra CPU, you make your robot lighter, no problems with armor types being undistinguishable.
Another issue here is armor shapes. Personally, I believe what we should do is to multiply CPU limit and all CPU costs by 20, except for armor cubes. Then, full armor cube CPU is also multiplied by 20 and it's health remains the same, and all other armor shapes have their CPU cost proportional to volume (like Edge is 10 CPU and Corner Slope is 1 CPU), and their health and weight should be proportional to CPU as well. This would allow to get rid of all those balance issues surrounding different armor shapes, and would make it so armor shapes will not look like LMH replacement. The reason why we haven't implemented it already is because it is huge risky change that may do more bad than good."

Post has attachment
This was my submission to the recent weapon contest...
Slow trickle charge regardless of weapon selection.
Devastates the energy of all bots within the blast radius.

Did LMHX get confirmed?

If you've seen FJ's most recent Robonews article #15, there was a hint down below saying "Microbots tanking up! Why?" If anything, this could mean allowing small bots to be highly compact and tanky. Perhaps making use of heavy cubes (or TX cubes) for extreme weight (or vice versa) but minimal cube usage. Now, I'm not a tanky user, but if next update also includes lighter cube variants, I'll be more than a happy RC user to get my bots back into speedy mode.

In addition to this, could this also mean longer TTK because we get heavy cube variants now?

Master Charts and sub charts going under Major Changes
-removing all sections calculating shape based ratios
-adding a new class modifying current classes (L H M HX LX)
(All classes not required but under review)
-build criterion based only on All Cube Shapes Equal
-creating new situation analysis based on build 
-adding entire inventory to factor in all stats

Starting to come together !

Post has attachment
Up again is the poll--> but with one additional choice. However I see that we had a clear winner last time. Hopefully this will shake things up
votes visible to Public
All Shapes Equivelent
Shapes Use Current Ratios
Equal "mass/ shape" And "armor / shape"

LMHX Implementations: How not to break robots

The general consensus seems to be that if LMHX is brought in, then the base cube would become the M cube. With this, a lot of builds are based on M cube = 2 CPU. With the new "standard cube" being  at twice the CPU of our current, then all other cubes should be scaled appropriately. A reasonable compromise is that the CPU cap is raised to 3030CPU, and that all current functionals (guns and equipment alike) have their CPU doubled. 

Any other issues should be addressed here regarding "packaging" of LMHX

Changes Regarding Chart Calculations. The farthest right "Stacked comparison" takes different ratios within your cube balancing report and normalizes them to be close in metric. An example is that heal rates are small values like 1-10, where as armor can have very high values in the order of 10^3. The changes made make heal rate more comparable to armor changes. With recent additions in auto heal- I have increased the weight that heal rate effects the stacked comparisons. I would advise everyone take a look at the changes. Re-balancing should not required, however, you may have to review how your heal rate values are handled. 

I'm starting to lose faith in FJ with the LMH idea and slope balancing. After reading this

and a few other follow up posts by the FJ staff, I'm afraid they don't know their balance design philosophy too well. Weight and health ratio barely seems to be a thing in their balancing consideration. I dare say, I almost feel like FJ needs a build challenge. Make an artbot with high agility without obstructing most of the artbot with large thrusters. I have no idea what kinds of bots they are using in their testing and how they are using them.

They saw flyers as a powerful bot, when it was really the tesseracts that were dominant. They then add 2 AA weapons that were made to counter those tesseracts when it actually caused more damage to the other flying robots, and ironically, some ground bots as well.

I don't know at this point. I feel that FJ won't fully understand the issue unless they have genuinely experienced it themselves or see the clear issue through relevant footages.

Post has attachment
Much like XCOM's resistance, we lost the first battle, but others revived our will to lead the war!

LMH(And X for its extent) are back on topic, since Phase is dropping in soon. (ETA Feb. 25th)

I think we should give our support, ideas, and opinions on the resurgence of LMH. This is community is here for that reason, right...?
Wait while more posts are being loaded