51 replies to this topic

[Moromillas]

WolvesX, on 01 March 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

Don't think so proof me wrong.

Several developers have posted about the going on with patch cycles, and how much work is involved, etc. It's not as simple as just changing a line of code and pressing compile.

[WolvesX]

Moromillas, on 01 March 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

Several developers have posted about the going on with patch cycles, and how much work is involved, etc. It's not as simple as just changing a line of code and pressing compile.

Well actually the weapon data is stored in a XML database, it is the easiest thing to mod in the game...

[Moromillas]

WolvesX, on 01 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Well actually the weapon data is stored in a XML database, it is the easiest thing to mod in the game...

...You'll want to dig up info on what goes into patches.

[WolvesX]

Moromillas, on 01 March 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

...You'll want to dig up info on what goes into patches.

Sure its not that super easy, but I think these changes are resonable, MG for example, why don't you like that one ?

[Moromillas]

WolvesX, on 01 March 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Sure its not that super easy, but I think these changes are resonable, MG for example, why don't you like that one ?

I can't say with all certainty that those changes are balanced.

[WolvesX]

Moromillas, on 01 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

I can't say with all certainty that those changes are balanced.

Neither can I for sure, but they are better then what we have now.

[MaddMaxx]

Spheroid, on 28 February 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

What I want to know is if the developers ever experiemented with viable machine guns, ones that were competitive with the small laser. If they discovered something during closed testing why haven't they revealed it to us?

Four machine gun max on a chassis was never a danger from a boating standpoint and is limited by both damage dispersion and very short range.

I just want an explanation.

I think you answered your own question.

Quote

competitive with the small laser.

If the MG was "competitive" with the SL, then, if given a choice, why would you take a heat generator versus a no heat generator, despite the MG's ammo requirements.

[WolvesX]

MaddMaxx, on 01 March 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

I think you answered your own question.



If the MG was "competitive" with the SL, then, if given a choice, why would you take a heat generator versus a no heat generator, despite the MG's ammo requirements.

Because of hardpoints, better thing to do with BL hps...

[Tickdoff Tank]

WolvesX, on 28 February 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

You shouldn't forget crit, ammo and tons.

UAC -> less ammo, 1 + ton

That is correct (of course), but I still feel that my point stands. The UAC5 (with my proposal) still has a vastly improved ROF in exchange for the 5 less shots per ton + 1 ton additional weight, in addition the UAC5 has longer range as well.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Quote

If the MG was "competitive" with the SL, then, if given a choice, why would you take a heat generator versus a no heat generator, despite the MG's ammo requirements.

In MWO, right now, the only viable light (as related to tonnage) weapons are the Small Laser and the Medium Laser (0.5 and 1.0 tons respectively). There is no ballistic option for a light, short range weapon. That is the niche which should be filled by the MG. If your mech has multiple ballistic hardpoints then you have no choice but to mount a heavy (tonnage) weapon, the lightest AC is 6 tons+ammo. Many mechs have ballistic hardpoints that seem to have been placed for the express purpose of using MGs.

Look at the 4 ballistic Cicada, or the Dragon 5N. It may be possible to mount 4 AC2s on a Cicada but I would not cal it effective (funny as heck though) and the Dragon 5N can only make use of the 3 ballistic spots by using at least 1 AC2. If the MG was a viable weapon then we would have more choices on how to build a mech, but with MGs as they currently are they are almost a complete waste of tonnage.

The recent buff was a step in the right direction, but MGs need more love. I think that a basic damage boost on top of the crit damage buff might be enough.

[Kazly]

WolvesX, on 28 February 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Have you read the first 3 books of battletech the "Grey Death Legion Saga" so to say. They use heat weapons in exactly that way.

i'm not sure if I have or not honestly. I'll read them regardless though - maybe broaden my sense of acceptance.

[Kazly]

Quote

Have you read the first 3 books of battletech the "Grey Death Legion Saga" so to say. They use heat weapons in exactly that way.

Quote

Flamer -> Increase the heatgeneration by A LOT, like x8 or x6 times and screw the crit. Here is your stun.

Now we got CC in game and a usefull flamer. It now can seriously lower the enemy DPS, if your target uses energy or rockets.

Direct compeditor: Inferno Missles

Read the first two, took a break, just started the third today, but I have yet to see flamers used as CC, especiallly the way you mention in the original post. In fact, the first book didn't mention flamers much at all, and the second seemed to regard them (in one specific instance) as anti-infantry. I will finish the third book this weekend though.

Now, infernos - yeah, I will agree these were definitely aggressive heat sources, but keep in mind in other books, there were definite drawbacks to using an inferno (such as an ammo explosion, or if your mech's heat raised too much). What's the dawback in MWO for using a flamer? Can the fuel source be targeted/exploded?

Edited by Kazly, 21 March 2013 - 07:49 AM.