57 replies to this topic

[Clit Beastwood]

Just a thought - with how lame the airstrikes and artillery are, I'd love to see a napalm type airstrike. Hot mechs would shut down momentarily, cooler mechs would have to manage their heat. Then you could mitigate a squad of ppc stalkers, forcing them to manage heat. It would, of course, provide light on a dark map. It'd be good for the fire to be "sticky" so mechs dont cool instantly after leaving. Thoughts? In all honesty, I think I really just want to see a cryengine 3 rendered wall of fire

[One Medic Army]

I...

...

...kind of like this idea.

[Rippthrough]

Much as I dislike the airstrike/arty being in there to start with, I do think that's a very good direction to take with it.

Edited by Rippthrough, 12 April 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Shumabot]

It would be as effective as flamers, the PPC stalkers wouldn't even notice their heat gauges moving and the planet would overheat and explode instantly.

[Oriius]

Hmm, that is an interesting idea indeed. Frankly its a far more tactical idea than the current ones we have in, so thats always good in my eyes.

[Juree Riggd]

All I want is a minelayer module so people that cry about deathcircling lights that they can't run away from will stop crying.

Back on topic though, I like the idea!

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

I like it.

[One Medic Army]

Shumabot, on 12 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

It would be as effective as flamers, the PPC stalkers wouldn't even notice their heat gauges moving and the planet would overheat and explode instantly.

It could be more powerful due to single use and timer.
Flamers run the danger of being perma-stun while airstrikes don't.

[Roland]

I support this idea.

[skelley92]

Yes!!!

[IIIuminaughty]

Sounds fun

[Roland]

Shumabot, on 12 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

It would be as effective as flamers, the PPC stalkers wouldn't even notice their heat gauges moving and the planet would overheat and explode instantly.

I think there is some assumption involved here that the napalm would actually function correctly.

Thomas D. already said they were working on changing things up with the flamers.

[Soy]

Smells like...

...victory.

[Shumabot]

One Medic Army, on 12 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

It could be more powerful due to single use and timer.
Flamers run the danger of being perma-stun while airstrikes don't.

Flamers run the risk of perma stun because the games developers are incompetent and haven't devised a solution to perma stun through flamers. Many, many solutions spring to mind right away for me and most others, so I honestly have zero trust that this games developers could figure out how to develop and implement napalm air strikes.

They couldn't even get the airstrikes that we DO HAVE to work properly, let alone get a more technically complex one to function at all.

Roland, on 12 April 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

I think there is some assumption involved here that the napalm would actually function correctly.

Thomas D. already said they were working on changing things up with the flamers.

Yeah, direct x and collisions too. They also think the current state of ECM is "nearly perfect". Forgive me for thinking they're bad at this.

[Geritz]

HAH!
...
Wait that's not a bad idea...

[Jonathan Paine]

If and only if: Airstrikes were incorporated into team play - that is to say require authorization using the command console AFTER a scouting mech with BAP/TAG/NARC and/or slave console requests the strike - then:

Heck yeah! A napalm air strike would be a great addition to team play

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 12 April 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[Geredis]

Also, any chance of the napalm being persistent through the entire match? Or at least stick around for a couple of minutes? It might make things interesting to turn it into a multi-function consumable, so that it's not only a death-dealing wall of fire as mentioned, but also a means to smokescreen a lance as it advances, effectively nullifying both night vision (due to the excess light emitted) and thermal (because well...fire is hot), as well as serving as a general area-denial weapon in the same way land mines might be used were they implemented.

[Juree Riggd]

Jonathan Paine, on 12 April 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

If and only if: Airstrikes were incorporated into team play - that is to say require authorization using the command console AFTER a scouting mech with BAP/TAG/NARC and/or slave console requests the strike - then:

Heck yeah! A napalm air strike would be a great addition to team play

I would think it should be the other way around. A command console mech targets an area for a strike, then a mech with a TAG or NARC should have to paint the target area for the incoming airstrike/artillery barrage. Standard risk vs reward. The mech painting has to expose itself to paint the target, but if it's successful, the airstrike or artillery barrage can be devastating.

[Koniving]

Personally, I was hoping for a destroyable aircraft rushing in and dropping bombs and/or harassing a particular mech.

It'd give me a reason to do this other than destroying the Atlas.



RAWR!!!!

[TheCas]

was like omg arty troll.........

then

O_o

i like that idea

Edited by Kalley, 12 April 2013 - 11:04 AM.