49 replies to this topic

[Pinselborste]

another thing is, how is pgi collecting data needed when less than 0.1% of players have used an mg in the last weeks.

every weapon should be viable, not like the flamer and the mg, both need serius buffs to be worth taking.Critical hit buff was next to useless.

[CallMeGunny]

I agree with the base suggestion: But no grenade launchers. Seriously, just no..

What they could do is add a variant of the LBX, basically a shotgun already. Just give us a smaller version which uses a different ammunition type doing less damage. Or squeeze in an AC/3, but give it reduced range compared to the existing theme of "smaller projectile=longer range". Maybe compare it to the AC/10's range, for use with a mid-range brawler.

honestly I don't have a clue what weapons would be best suited to "lore", as I'm not a fan of mechs prior to this game. But I do know that grenade launchers are probably the worst possible weapon to include in this game.

Pinselborste, on 19 March 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

another thing is, how is pgi collecting data needed when less than 0.1% of players have used an mg in the last weeks.

every weapon should be viable, not like the flamer and the mg, both need serius buffs to be worth taking.Critical hit buff was next to useless.

You made that statistic up, obviously.

Any idea how many players want raven-3L elite skills? You have to use the 4X if you want them, and it comes with Machine guns by default. More players leave them on than ever bother removing them.

So all in all, you have a LOT of users with machine guns simply because they're grinding for a better mech.

Personally seen almost 20 MGs today alone, and surprisingly even on Cataphracts as well.

[Jetfire]

MG buff, yes, other suggestions, no.

[Pinselborste]

CallMeGunny, on 19 March 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

I agree with the base suggestion: But no grenade launchers. Seriously, just no..

What they could do is add a variant of the LBX, basically a shotgun already. Just give us a smaller version which uses a different ammunition type doing less damage. Or squeeze in an AC/3, but give it reduced range compared to the existing theme of "smaller projectile=longer range". Maybe compare it to the AC/10's range, for use with a mid-range brawler.

honestly I don't have a clue what weapons would be best suited to "lore", as I'm not a fan of mechs prior to this game. But I do know that grenade launchers are probably the worst possible weapon to include in this game.



You made that statistic up, obviously.

Any idea how many players want raven-3L elite skills? You have to use the 4X if you want them, and it comes with Machine guns by default. More players leave them on than ever bother removing them.

So all in all, you have a LOT of users with machine guns simply because they're grinding for a better mech.

Personally seen almost 20 MGs today alone, and surprisingly even on Cataphracts as well.

the people who use mg are in the low elo pool, cause they are grinding things that have to use mg cause they cant fit anything else. once they finished those variants the mgs get dropped instantly,
thats just another thing that shows that the lights with ballistics are inferior.

havent seen a mech with mg since 1 week, if people that use mg variants cant get the elo up, even if they are actually good players, than theres something wrong with the weapons those variants can use.

[FrozenAnt]

I love my Cent's to death, but there is no reason for me to drop my 3x SRM6's in order to cram a ballistic in that right arm... Even the Ac2 takes at least 7 tons... which i could have an SRM 6+ART 2 T ammo, and a M laser

Cicada's never had ECM
X-5 was never in BT
Double armor
1.4 DHS
Streak mechanics
AMS mechanics
All pre 3050 IS mechs are nearly omni-mechs

STOP WITH THE CANON!

This is a FPS. The term MMOFPS didn't even EXIST when this stuff was made. For the sake of balance and fun Please do something (Not exactly) but something in line with OP's suggestion.

I would take an AC 3, max range 800M 50 Ammo per ton at 3-4 tons of weight. with a ROF about 60%-75% of an AC 2 over 1 srm 6. JUST for the flexibility to do something past 270m.

I just threw those numbers out there as I don't know how the balance works. But basically I want to be able to sacrifice some raw upfront power for some medium range capability, with out gimping my speed, as speed=life even for a medium.

Everything else... is just too heavy! a 64kph cent may have worked in TT, but vs a ~75ish 6x6 cat.. yeah... not happening..

[DoktorVivi]

In canon there are Light AC/2s (4 tons) and Light AC/5s (5 tons). Less range than the others, but they would totally be viable, I think. I'd love to get me some lighter ballistics like that.

Timeline-wise it wouldn't be canon, but the devs have been a bit loose with canon anyway, and I think this would be a good change game-balance wise for the lighter mechs and mechs with multiple ballistic hardpoints like the Dragon and the Jagermech.

For reference:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_AC/2
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_AC/5

Edited by DoktorVivi, 20 March 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Wolf Ender]

What if we left Machine Guns the same (stats) but allowed mechwarriors to mount 2 or possibly even 3 machine guns for a single ballistic hardpoint?

So if you had a SINGLE ballistic hardpoint on an arm, you could put 2 machine guns there, 2 slots, 1 ton (.5 each), but only 1 hardpoint. maybe?

Each machine gun would still take a full critical slot, and still use double the ammo, but it would allow mechs with limited ballistic hardpoints to beef up their machine guns if they decide to boat them.

The main problem with using machine guns is that only a few configs can mount enough of them to adequately harm a mech. there are only a couple configs that are capable of doing 4-6 MGs. If we doubled their ability to mount the guns it might make them more effective and they would still be paying a price for the crit space. just an idea.

[Pinselborste]

Wolf Ender, on 20 March 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

What if we left Machine Guns the same (stats) but allowed mechwarriors to mount 2 or possibly even 3 machine guns for a single ballistic hardpoint?

So if you had a SINGLE ballistic hardpoint on an arm, you could put 2 machine guns there, 2 slots, 1 ton (.5 each), but only 1 hardpoint. maybe?

Each machine gun would still take a full critical slot, and still use double the ammo, but it would allow mechs with limited ballistic hardpoints to beef up their machine guns if they decide to boat them.

The main problem with using machine guns is that only a few configs can mount enough of them to adequately harm a mech. there are only a couple configs that are capable of doing 4-6 MGs. If we doubled their ability to mount the guns it might make them more effective and they would still be paying a price for the crit space. just an idea.

doubling the ammount of how much useless weapons you can mount wont help much for lights its the weight, a mg weights the same as a small laser and needs 1 ton of ammo too, just to be at about 40% the damage per second with 10 times the spread.

[stjobe]

Wolf Ender, on 20 March 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

What if we left Machine Guns the same (stats) but allowed mechwarriors to mount 2 or possibly even 3 machine guns for a single ballistic hardpoint?

So if you had a SINGLE ballistic hardpoint on an arm, you could put 2 machine guns there, 2 slots, 1 ton (.5 each), but only 1 hardpoint. maybe?

Each machine gun would still take a full critical slot, and still use double the ammo, but it would allow mechs with limited ballistic hardpoints to beef up their machine guns if they decide to boat them.

The main problem with using machine guns is that only a few configs can mount enough of them to adequately harm a mech. there are only a couple configs that are capable of doing 4-6 MGs. If we doubled their ability to mount the guns it might make them more effective and they would still be paying a price for the crit space. just an idea.

Another overly-complicated can't-buff-without-an-even-bigger-nerf suggestion. I'll add it to the growing pile. Thank you for your contribution.

And no, the main problem with using machine guns isn't that you can't mount enough. It's that they don't do enough damage. Like a third of what's acceptable.

[Pinselborste]

stjobe, on 20 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Another overly-complicated can't-buff-without-an-even-bigger-nerf suggestion. I'll add it to the growing pile. Thank you for your contribution.

And no, the main problem with using machine guns isn't that you can't mount enough. It's that they don't do enough damage. Like a third of what's acceptable.

yeah, mounting more crap weapons doesnt turn them into better ones but the devs dont seem to notice how bad mg, flamer and lbx10 are compared to other weapons.