Awesomes Fast Enough?
#1
Posted 24 April 2013 - 07:30 PM
#2
Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:55 PM
#3
Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:09 PM
#4
Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:36 AM
But I think they need a CT hitbox adjustment more than anything.
#5
Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:43 AM
I think the arm hitbox should continue and behave like it's shown in the mechlab. This way you could go XL easily or last longer, since when your arm is blown off, only 50% of the damage is transferred from the shoulder to the side torso.
Edited by John MatriX82, 25 April 2013 - 12:43 AM.
#6
Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:02 AM
#7
Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:35 AM
You can say; Yes, awesome has more mobility than an assault so it is made less resilient. (Which we are pointing out here on this thread that is not) Even so, the 'mech's CT hitbox is severely problematic. Hell, its sad. I played a match with my Centurion just yesterday, and we pitted against 2 DRG, 1 CICADA, 1CN9 with my other fellow Centurion, and we took them down 2vs.4 with scarce LRM support. The opponents were not pros, but that is not the point. What I want to say by telling this is that we took a lot of fire. I am not saying Cent. is broken, it's fine.
The point is; It is sad that I know, my Awesome being 30 tons heavier than the CN9, wouldn't survive even half the fire I took on that occasion.
Edited by Xelchon, 25 April 2013 - 02:36 AM.
#8
Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:39 AM
#9
Posted 25 April 2013 - 03:42 AM
I remember a year ago when we were begging for PGI to announce the Awesome as one of the first mechs we could play with. We wanted a PPC boat.
Well, now EVERY mech has PPC's or large autocannons. Part of this is because we don't have any other targets to shoot at besides mechs, so we use mech killing weapons. We can't torch bunkers and light woods on fire with our flamers. We can't shoot down aircraft with our AC/2s. We can kill infantry with machine guns. We can't knock out in buildings and turrets indirectly with LRM's. We don't have to worry about little vehicles and battlearmor, so we don't need small, medium lasers, AC/5's, SRMs.
The other part is that despite what the mechs were designed to do lore-wise, and despite what the mechs LOOK like, we can turn them into something completely different and wreck what makes any of the mechs unique. We mind as well trash several chassis because they have no purpose when another mech can do their job better.
PGI says they want to honor classic battletech, but they missed the boat with how their hardpoints work. They are stuck thinking about weapons as ballistic/energy/missiles. Hardpoints should be based on the model of the mech their looking at, and size, rather than type.
Weapon Hardpoints should look like this:
Large bore (PPC's, Gauss, large ACs)
Medium bore (L.Lasers, medium AC's)
Small bore (S/M Lasers, M guns, AC2s, flamers)
Large missle racks (LRM 10-20)
Small missle racks (SRMs, SSRMs, LRM 5s)
-and-
Support gear like NARC and TAG should not use hardpoints.
While it's still BETA, they should redefine hardpoints. Then you'll see a much bigger variety of mech builds out there...
#10
Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:07 AM
Edited by SmokinDave73, 25 April 2013 - 05:08 AM.
#11
Posted 25 April 2013 - 05:33 AM
Would also be nice to mimikry some other 80t-canon designs (Thug, Hatamoto series). which have a 4/6 movement rating.
#12
Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:38 AM
We need Hitbox Adjustment, or Hardpoint Sizes (in that case the Awesome would have great sized Hardpoints)
#13
Posted 25 April 2013 - 08:49 AM
John MatriX82, on 25 April 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:
I think the arm hitbox should continue and behave like it's shown in the mechlab. This way you could go XL easily or last longer, since when your arm is blown off, only 50% of the damage is transferred from the shoulder to the side torso.
^This. Changeing the Hitboxes like they are displayed in the Mechlab would go farther then a speed increase.
Peiper, on 25 April 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:
I think this is the source of the problem. But, I prefer to just limit the size of the Hardpoint simlar to MW4/MWT. While, still keeping the number limit as well.
#14
Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:57 AM
Having a Assault mech with all energy and missiles in a slow engine is a death sentence. Look at the stalker it has a ton of hardpoints but people generally only use 4 ppc's on them. Simply because they need all the heat sinks they can get.
#15
Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:01 AM
If they gave them actual chassis based bonuses, like the Awesome has an extra 3 heat sinks worth of dissipation, you could make them relevant.
But I am not seeing that kind of chassis based tuning happening.
#16
Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:08 AM
#17
Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:18 AM
so yes.
#19
Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:54 AM
That said, no. To fix the Awesome they need to put in WEIGHT or BV matching not mess with it's stats. If it cost far less to use for the team than a Stalker/Highlander/Atlas, you'd see a lot more pop up.
EDIT: Also, the Quirk system could be very helpful here. If you gave the Awesome 10% better heat efficiency, for example, you'd suddenly find that it would be a viable option over the Stalker.
Edited by Victor Morson, 25 April 2013 - 11:57 AM.
#20
Posted 25 April 2013 - 12:02 PM
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users