Jump to content

FORUMS

Asmudius Heng

Member Since 01 Nov 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 12:21 AM
***--

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Lb 10-X Ac

Yesterday, 09:58 PM

View PostVassago Rain, on 20 May 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:


It's not the LBXthat does your damage, man.



It barely has any range, due to the spread nature. Even when they tighten it, it still won't have any range.


Exactly, which is why they should make its damage up close more brutal and give the weapon a niche - take an LBX to infight, with the option to spray mechs at range (might do soemthing if they are armour stripped but meh), or take an AC10 and do good damage at most ranges bt not as good in knife fighting range

In Topic: Lb 10-X Ac

Yesterday, 06:32 PM

LBX needs something to be more viable.

I posted a topic about this before:

http://mwomercs.com/...-a-real-purpose

In a nutshell the idea is to make each pellet do more damage the closer you are to the mech. This would make it a premier infighter weapon but just as inefficient at range as now. It would keep the flavour of a shotgun and differentiate it from the AC10 further. As long as the exact increase in damage is tested to not be OP it allows it to be a situationally good weapon but with a high application of that situation (more than the crit seeker function)

In Topic: Combine Hardpoints With Maximum Slots/tonnes Per Hardpoint

Yesterday, 04:52 PM

Also, to reiterate again one of the big bugbears about this.

The size of the stock weapon would not ALWAYS determine the size of the slot.

The Swayback for instance looks like it should have a heap of smaller Hardpoints - but 1 in the gun torso or more could be LARGE hardpoints that in the stock varient just hold a smaller weapon.

This way the mechs are not totally static, but have a great deal of variance. The issue is in fact usually on mechs that have a bunch of smaller weapons on the stock config and so the developers are forced to add hardpoints for all of them leading to large weapon boating on some mechs. In turn this has led the developers to add MORE hardpoints to mechs that do not have many base weapons (Awesome) to compete with those that do (Stalker).

This shows a fundamental flaw in thier hardpoint system that a slight restriction in the mechlab can correct to give mechs more sense of role, and differentiate them from other mechs.

In Topic: Proposal For Ipad As A Interface Device For Mwo:

Yesterday, 04:46 PM

I would use it to have the large map up on the ipad screen and use it to give commander orders etc whiel i keep my main screen just for gunning and piloting.

I would buy an app like that.

In Topic: Rework Efficiencies To Be Optional

Yesterday, 04:35 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 20 May 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

The game as currently constituted could probably need it. However, you can imagine the people griping about some of this because if you remove some of the efficiencies that they are used to (like coolrun and heat containment) but something that is less noticeable until you don't have it (like kinetic speed/hard brake).. it would be far less pleasant.

Overall, some of the underlying issues are tied to the entire efficiencies tree in general, so this would require serious reworking.


I agree somewhat, the efficiencies are poorly thought out and thats is why I offered this compromise basically.

However people bitching about change - well that will always happen. Happens every patch when they change weapons, I don't see how it would cause any more rage changing this as everyone gets the same hit of change. They need to do this before they launch also because I be things become set in stone after that.

I would hope more people would like this change as it give another level of thought to building your mech - I see this as your techs tweaking your machine, but like most things in engineering, you cannot get straight up bonuses for everything, there are trade offs.

View PostDeathlike, on 20 May 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Efficiencies in general are very dramatic IMO and really need to be revamped wholly, one way or another.

I've said this before, and I guess I'll repeat it.

The best way (at the moment IMO) efficiencies should work better at their base.. being increased by 33%. Then they can be further increased by 50%. The numbers will work out to be in the same in the end, so those having the basic efficiencies would not be handicapped too much if they do not bother to fully elite the mech.

1 * 1.33 = 1.33 * 1.5 = ~2


The issue with changing how the power works is you are still adding power. PGI seem to like the idea of options with modules so this is a way to curb power - but give people a reason to grind as it gives more options for customisation. That is where MWO can find a good F2P compromise I believe where people grind for many options to customise rather than straight up power which is death to F2P games.