Jump to content

Hardpoint Restrictions - All Chassis And Variants Rebalanced Against Excessive Boating

Started by John MatriX82, Jun 11 2013 02:34 AM

110 replies to this topic

#1 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:34 AM

Here's an hardpoint restriction system to rebalance the game; I've spoilered the old contents, and let the good ideas unspoilerd (mainly the missile weapon limitation I thought, that looks more than valid to me), I'll have to rethink ballistics and energy hardpoint limitations entirely.

Spoiler


3)Missiles:
For missiles the system is another and it's based on the available tubes. It's simple, if a section holds a certain number of tubes, then you can mount a maximum of missiles that doesn't exceed the available tubes (NO consecutive salvos from bigger launchers). By this, you have 10 tubes and 1 hardpoint? You can place a LRM 10 or a LRM5 or a single SRM6.
Multiple missile hardpoints within a section? Example: catapult A1 holds 15 tubes in each arm and 3x3 missile hardpoints. Good, you can bring in at max 30 lrms. Yes, dual LRM15 or 6xLRM5.


Mixing LRMs with SRMs/SSRMs:

A concession to this system would be the ability to mix SRMs/SSRMs with LRMs once multiple hardpoints are available within the same section of the mech, but both would be limited by the maximum available tubes. So keeping the CTPL-A1 as a reference, you'd be able to slap dual LRM15 (one in each arm) and 2xSRM6 (12 tubes used on 15).

Posted Image

You want to go splatpult? Ok, but you have 15 tubes so no more 6xSRM6 for you. You can place SRM6+SRM4+SRM4 in each arm at maximum (14 tubes) or SRM6+SRM6+SRM2.

Another example: Centurion A.

Posted Image

Either LRM 10 + SRM6+SRM4 (all hardpoints used) or 2xLRM5+SRM6 or SRM4+SRM4+SRM2 or SRM6+SRM2+SRM2. No more 3xSRM6.
Getting back to the main concept, the idea is that to address and differentiate chassis and variants allowing them to bring a certain number of weapons of a given tier; once addressed all the available slots for that tier, you're stuck to tier I weapons (or tier II when available) to fill the rest of the hardpoints.

A tier III crit limitation doesn't prevent you to place a tier I weapon in there, as well as a tier II weapon; the same for tier II weapons, you can place a tier I weapon instead of the tier II.
What follows is an idea.

Of course certain mechs might be OP even in this way, but I'm trying to encourage hardpoint usage by employing all of them with a certain degree of variability usually resulting in more balanced builds. Until now 3 PPCs / 3LLs have been awarded by me only to the Awesomes, some Atlases can do 3 LL or 4 LL, but no 4PPC on the RS; Stalkers are mostly limited to 2PPCs or eventually can do 2PPC + 1LL or 3LL, but never beyond this and so on, going down to the lighter mechs.

All of this can of course be tweaked and critics are absolutely welcome; however for me it's critical to avoid 4/5/6 PPC/LL builds, more than 50 LRM builds, 6xSRM6 builds. Smaller boaters imho are fine, 6+ML builds are powerful yes, but you also are limited by engagement range or by heat anyway even with the current system.

Jumpsniping might be addressed and rendered more possible thanks to what's following as well, since 3xPPC+GR builds on 732 or other landers wouldn't be possible and the CTF 3D would be limited as well, without being capable of 3/4PPCs/LLs or dual Gauss anymore at least in my wishes.

Spoiler

Edited by John MatriX82, 27 June 2013 - 12:53 AM.

#2 OneEyed Jack

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:56 AM

It's not a new idea, and it's bad.

If you want to play MW4, go play MW4.

Your stupid limitations actually have stock loadouts as impossible.

#3 Jesoo_Creesto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:02 AM

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

It's not a new idea, and it's bad.

If you want to play MW4, go play MW4.

Your stupid limitations actually have stock loadouts as impossible.

Yeah, and may be you like to play unbalanced games :)

#4 XSerjo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:20 AM

It's awful idea to nerf ALL mechs by hardpoint systems. Why should we have restrictions for non-imba chassis (espetially lights and medums).

Good example - your Jenners.. No Tier III hardpoints, really. Jenners have huge arms, they are larger than Raven's/Spider's arms but.. No Tier III hardpoints - why, even your Spiders have it.

Edited by XSerjo, 11 June 2013 - 03:29 AM.

#5 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:31 AM

View PostXSerjo, on 11 June 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

It's awful idea to nerf ALL mechs by hardpoint systems. Why should we have restrictions for non-imba chassis (espetially lights and medums).

Good example - your Jenners.. No Tier III hardpointsr, really. Jenners have huge arms, they are larger than Raven's arms but.. No Tier III hardpoints - why, even your Spiders have it.


Hm, probably because I'd liked to avoid silly 3PPC builds on jenners but it's a good point. I don't see much jenners with more than LLs, they aren't snipers but more strikers, that's why I probably limited them this way. Spiders have so few hardpoints that maybe they needed a buff that's why I awarded some of them of tier III.

Imho it's not a nerf, it's an incentive to create more balanced builds towards weapon differentiation rather than boating 4+ LLs or PPCs.

Of course it's a tradeoff, I'd prefer this to heat penalties.

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

It's not a new idea, and it's bad.

If you want to play MW4, go play MW4.

Your stupid limitations actually have stock loadouts as impossible.


I see good constructive criticism here thanks, I'd like to help me out address those stock loadouts, I don't remember each one and of course as I said the system can be tweaked and discussed. Sadly saying "it's stupid, **** off" isn't much of an help.

Edited by John MatriX82, 11 June 2013 - 03:33 AM.

#6 Demuder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:34 AM

Despite the amount of time the op has poured into this, and an equally fine presentation, the idea itself is not that good.

The main reason is that you are practically pigeonholing each variant into a specific setup. Which then creates the question why even have the hardpoint limitations in the first place ?

I would like to see a limitation of launchers vs tubes available however. Mounting 2x LRM20s on a 15 tube torso is kinda silly. Ineffective too, but people keep doing it.

Edited by dimstog, 11 June 2013 - 03:36 AM.

#7 XSerjo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:51 AM

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 11 June 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:


Hm, probably because I'd liked to avoid silly 3PPC builds on jenners but it's a good point. I don't see much jenners with more than LLs, they aren't snipers but more strikers, that's why I probably limited them this way. Spiders have so few hardpoints that maybe they needed a buff that's why I awarded some of them of tier III.

Imho it's not a nerf, it's an incentive to create more balanced builds towards weapon differentiation rather than boating 4+ LLs or PPCs.

Of course it's a tradeoff,I'd prefer this to heat penalties.


That's why people don't like your suggestions, you didn't take in account consequences of unintended nerfs (yes, it's a nerf).
You preferences != "silent majority" preferences.

For example, you don't know about all usable Jenner's configs but you decided to nerf it. But somebody likes to pilot 1-2PPC Jenner and it's not imbalanced config.

Constructive criticism:
  • As I said before, your system brings unintended nerfs for well-balanced chassis and configs, so it's bad system.
  • What to do? You did a great job, but you have to rework your system, there're only 2 criteria:

Quote

  • It must prevent high-pinpoint-alpha boating on imbalanced heavy and assault chassis (like Stalkers).
  • It must not screw other builds.

Edited by XSerjo, 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM.

#8 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:54 AM

View Postdimstog, on 11 June 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

Despite the amount of time the op has poured into this, and an equally fine presentation, the idea itself is not that good.

The main reason is that you are practically pigeonholing each variant into a specific setup. Which then creates the question why even have the hardpoint limitations in the first place ?


Hmm remember that if you have a tier III hardpoint you can fit tier III, tier II and tier I in there. Probably by doing this you should be left with a furhter tier option (eg: you place a tier I weapon in one of the slots that could take a tier III, therefore you can address another tier II weapon), but to keep it simpler I made it that way.

View Postdimstog, on 11 June 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

I would like to see a limitation of launchers vs tubes available however. Mounting 2x LRM20s on a 15 tube torso is kinda silly. Ineffective too, but people keep doing it.


This is the part that I like more, I've been spitting missile tubes limitation from time to time a little bit everywhere, and it's even a simpler sys than tier hardpoints, that everyone is making me notice has a good amount of counters.

#9 OneEyed Jack

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 11 June 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

Hm, probably because I'd liked to avoid silly 3PPC builds on jenners .

Imho it's not a nerf, it's an incentive to create more balanced builds towards weapon differentiation rather than boating 4+ LLs or PPCs.

So what it really comes down to is that you want to play a certain way, and you want to dictate how everyone else plays. A big part of what makes this kind of game popular is variety. As Dimstog points out, pigeonholing mechs into specific loadouts is tantamount to removing all choices and making the game stale and boring. "You mean I get to choose something as important as ML or SL, since I don't have missiles and Flamers are poo? YAY!" :)

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 11 June 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

I see good constructive criticism here thanks, I'd like to help me out address those stock loadouts, I don't remember each one and of course as I said the system can be tweaked and discussed. Sadly saying "it's stupid, **** off" isn't much of an help.

This idea crops up about every freaking week, and has been shot down so many times, there's no good reason to provide "constructive criticism" because the idea is so inherently bad, it's beyond salvage. Go read the many, many threads already dealing with this idea.

View Postdimstog, on 11 June 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

I would like to see a limitation of launchers vs tubes available however. Mounting 2x LRM20s on a 15 tube torso is kinda silly. Ineffective too, but people keep doing it.

And that's why they will be getting modular launchers like the newer mechs have as they get to them. But screwing over existing mechs, by making the hardpoints they were designed to have useless, would be a bad move.

And it's all moot, anyway. There's not a chance in Hell they're going to throw out the existing hardpoint system and start with whole new limits, as it would require beginning the entire balancing process all over again.

#10 Xeno Phalcon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,461 posts
  • LocationEvening Ladies

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:01 AM

*Jedinerd hand wave* This is not the solution you are looking for.

#11 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:02 AM

I don't think we need missile tube limitations. We just need the model adjust to show the actual missile tubes we have. The same as for ballistics.

But I am not a fan of more hard point constraints anyway. I find it also highly questionable to distinguish PPCs, LLs and LPLs. They are 5-7 ton weapons with 2-3 crits. And once we add the Clan variants, the Clan ER PPC is actually as large as an LPL and lighter.

And not to forget that your system will be hard to make compatible with stock mechs, espeically when stock mechs exist that are boating the weapons we deem problematic boating.
If you wish to, you could at least say "I don't want canon configurations to be supported if they could end up imbalanced with current MW:O mechanics". But then you disappoint a lot of battletech fans that are waiting for their favorite mech to be introduced, or trying to "fake" one of their favorite mechs with the options available in MW:O.

I think the hard point restriction attempt on boating and alpha strikes is a red herring. It will be complicated to introduce now, wil ltake a lot of customization options out that might not even have been problematic, and risks either being ineffectual, because it still supports canon configs, or will make canon configs impossible, removing some of the Battletech flavor of the game.

#12 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:03 AM

View PostXSerjo, on 11 June 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

<p class="blockquote">
  • It must prevent high-pinpoint-alpha boating on imbalanced heavy and assault chassis (like Stalkers).
  • It must not screw other builds.




In fact tubes have helped me out to find a solution for absurd boating of lrms and srms, but the other hardpoints (energy and ballistic) leave me undecided or with less efficient ideas.

If you take a stock loadout (I'm thinking of the CTPL-K2) and limit certain weapons to those originally mounted in the stock, then you're even more limted/screwed out than with my system (the K2, I find it weird to use 2xGRs or 2xAC20's, but you should be able to mount mid and small sized ballistics in there).

At the same time I don't want to say "here is a 6 crit ballistic slot so you can only mount an LBX10 at maximum", because I'd like to leave the ability to place things where you want but once you use one you can't add a second weapon of the same class (if the chassis isn't prompted to do that).

#13 Demuder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:13 AM

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 11 June 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

Hmm remember that if you have a tier III hardpoint you can fit tier III, tier II and tier I in there. Probably by doing this you should be left with a furhter tier option (eg: you place a tier I weapon in one of the slots that could take a tier III, therefore you can address another tier II weapon), but to keep it simpler I made it that way.


But despite those choices, we all know that every player will gravitate to the most effective build. Meaning that for each of those variants, there will still be the "best" loadout. That is true with the current system anyways, but why go into all the trouble to reinvent the same thing ?

Ok, let me put it this way. The thesis of your system is to limit the use of silly builds, like the 4-6 ppc stalker, ac40 jagger, etc. The reason you want to do this is because they rely on several flawed (imho) mechanics to be by far more efficient than any other build on those mechs/variants - or even any other mech in their class. The solution you propose, although it would affect those setups, it would affect all the mechs and variants available.

Even if your system was agreeable to everyone and it did in fact, solve the problem, the flawed mechanics that created it in the first place, would still be there. So why try and implement a controversial system, instead of going directly against the flawed mechanics ? And how can you be sure that you have taken into account all the permissible setups and made sure that none of them would rely on those flawed mechanics to become the new OP builds ?

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

And it's all moot, anyway. There's not a chance in Hell they're going to throw out the existing hardpoint system and start with whole new limits, as it would require beginning the entire balancing process all over again.


Sadly, this is more true than anything. Not for the hardpoint system per se, but for many systems already in place.

What are "modular launchers" btw ?

#14 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:15 AM

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

So what it really comes down to is that you want to play a certain way, and you want to dictate how everyone else plays. A big part of what makes this kind of game popular is variety. As Dimstog points out, pigeonholing mechs into specific loadouts is tantamount to removing all choices and making the game stale and boring. "You mean I get to choose something as important as ML or SL, since I don't have missiles and Flamers are poo? YAY!" :D


Hm that wasn't the true intention, as I said the idea was to try to get more balanced builds, so that if you want to snipe ok, but on a certain chassis maybe you're locked into a GR+ERPPC combo option rather than being able to place 3-4-5-6 ppcs.

So is the heat penalty for boating the only way? I don't see it either to be that effective, probably 6 ppc stalkers will simply start to chain 2 PPCs groups in 3 different shots, and that wouldn't make such a big difference imho. Not only but this would indeed cripple viable builds like 6 or 9 ML's on mechs like cicadas, jenners, HBK 4P and so on, that are powerful but limited in range, heat or durability of the chassis itself.

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

And that's why they will be getting modular launchers like the newer mechs have as they get to them. But screwing over existing mechs, by making the hardpoints they were designed to have useless, would be a bad move.


Modular launchers like the HGN 733 capable to hold 20+10+10+10 tubes is alarming, and I truly hope they'll correct it. Uber missile boats are those that bring imbalance, because to balance LRM 80 stalkers you substantially take away any viability for mechs that may be limited to 10/20 missiles at maximum.

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

And it's all moot, anyway. There's not a chance in Hell they're going to throw out the existing hardpoint system and start with whole new limits, as it would require beginning the entire balancing process all over again.


Well something must be done, as a former 4PP stalker user to date (never went above this number), the current system is "too free". Thanks anyway for adding to the discussion :)


View PostMustrumRidcully, on 11 June 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

I don't think we need missile tube limitations. We just need the model adjust to show the actual missile tubes we have. The same as for ballistics.

But I am not a fan of more hard point constraints anyway. I find it also highly questionable to distinguish PPCs, LLs and LPLs. They are 5-7 ton weapons with 2-3 crits. And once we add the Clan variants, the Clan ER PPC is actually as large as an LPL and lighter.

And not to forget that your system will be hard to make compatible with stock mechs, espeically when stock mechs exist that are boating the weapons we deem problematic boating.
If you wish to, you could at least say "I don't want canon configurations to be supported if they could end up imbalanced with current MW:O mechanics". But then you disappoint a lot of battletech fans that are waiting for their favorite mech to be introduced, or trying to "fake" one of their favorite mechs with the options available in MW:O.

I think the hard point restriction attempt on boating and alpha strikes is a red herring. It will be complicated to introduce now, wil ltake a lot of customization options out that might not even have been problematic, and risks either being ineffectual, because it still supports canon configs, or will make canon configs impossible, removing some of the Battletech flavor of the game.


Thanks for adding this, it's clear I have to rework it, but imho missiles still need to be addressed in the way I propose, or limited in a certain manner to avoid certain absurdities like now.

#15 Tarrasque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • LocationDetroit, MI

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:18 AM

Long as I've been reading these forums, the vitriol from people never ceases to amaze me... simply toxic.


OP, I definitely like the suggestion - size hardpoints are far more true to the way that mechs have been and are supposed to be built. It will likely never happen, but all of these powergamer, min/maxers will absolutely tear you to shreds if you dare attempt to take away their ability to mount a ridiculous 2 Gauss or AC/20 on a mech that was never intended to do so.


Basically what it always comes down to, is having the min/maxers crying because they can't make every concievable build, claiming that it ruins the game to have any sort of limitations, and the BT/TT crowd will usually support measures like this, because they don't see the fun in building cheese.


Thanks for all the work in the post, I enjoyed reading through the proposal, and would like to see this implemented, for what its worth.

#16 Tarrasque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • LocationDetroit, MI

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:23 AM

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

So what it really comes down to is that you want to play a certain way, and you want to dictate how everyone else plays. A big part of what makes this kind of game popular is variety. As Dimstog points out, pigeonholing mechs into specific loadouts is tantamount to removing all choices and making the game stale and boring. "You mean I get to choose something as important as ML or SL, since I don't have missiles and Flamers are poo? YAY!" :)


This argument is always LOL-worthy... So, Mr. Jack, you believe that an attempt to bring the actual loadout of a mech more in line with the purposes of the mech as per canon and eliminate massive unintended missile boating is someone trying to 'dictate how everyone else plays'?

What does that say about your system we're running now? Are you not (or PGI anyways) doing the same with the many people who think that this massive alpha boating meta is the only way to play? You're dictating that I should have to play with a bunch of people who play this game like a job, who could care less about the background behind the game and see it solely as a modified shooter?

By the way, mechs were 'pigeonholed' by design since BT and MW's inception. What the hell is the point of a support mech if you can outfit it with the equipment to make it a brawler? What the hell is the point of omni-slots in the eventual clan invasion if we..... already essentially have that ability?

:D

#17 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:24 AM

View Postdimstog, on 11 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

But despite those choices, we all know that every player will gravitate to the most effective build. Meaning that for each of those variants, there will still be the "best" loadout. That is true with the current system anyways, but why go into all the trouble to reinvent the same thing ?

Ok, let me put it this way. The thesis of your system is to limit the use of silly builds, like the 4-6 ppc stalker, ac40 jagger, etc. The reason you want to do this is because they rely on several flawed (imho) mechanics to be by far more efficient than any other build on those mechs/variants - or even any other mech in their class. The solution you propose, although it would affect those setups, it would affect all the mechs and variants available.

Even if your system was agreeable to everyone and it did in fact, solve the problem, the flawed mechanics that created it in the first place, would still be there. So why try and implement a controversial system, instead of going directly against the flawed mechanics ? And how can you be sure that you have taken into account all the permissible setups and made sure that none of them would rely on those flawed mechanics to become the new OP builds ?


Well the idea started also with the intention to say "hey we have 2-3-4-5 variants that look the same, I might get some different usage to those" (think of the stalkers).

But yes, the flawed mechanics would be partially mitigated but not solved. Again thanks for adding to the discussion I'll need to mumble back into something else, but I'm not sure that heat penalties will solve the current troubles we are facing anyway and that will quite certainly cripple said valid/legit/tt builds.

View Postdimstog, on 11 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Sadly, this is more true than anything. Not for the hardpoint system per se, but for many systems already in place.

What are "modular launchers" btw ?


Take an HGN 733, slap dual LRM 10 in each arm, 10+10 tubes pop out of it. All landers have "modular" tube launchers, albeit still limited (you can add 2xLRM15 in that arm, but you won't go past beyond 10+10 tubes -thankfully I'd add-).

#18 Livewyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,733 posts
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:27 AM

I personally like being able to put whatever weapons in whatever hard-points available.

That being said, I think alpha-boating *IS* a problem- however I think we should wait until PGI releases the Alpha-heat penalty, and the heat scale penalties before trying to reinvent the wheel.

(especially since Missile tubes are cosmetic at the moment...Highlander's arm goes from 4 tubes all the way up through 20 depending on the weapon you put in it.)

#19 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:31 AM

View PostLivewyr, on 11 June 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

I personally like being able to put whatever weapons in whatever hard-points available.

That being said, I think alpha-boating *IS* a problem- however I think we should wait until PGI releases the Alpha-heat penalty, and the heat scale penalties before trying to reinvent the wheel.


I have fear they'll say "ok, shooting up to 4 medium lasers together is fine". Add the 5th, and all the other 4 will heat you up 10% more each one. Add a sixth, each ml will heat up 7 points. Add an 8th and each ML will heat up like a ppc.

2 PPCs are fine? Add the third in the alpha and you'll heat up like shooting 5 or 6 of them together. Solution: 6 PPC stalkers will shoot 2 ppc each, they won't add you with 60 dmg in a single section, but there's a degree of possibility they'll still do this nevertheless, heating up like they do now.

#20 Ralgas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,628 posts
  • LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ

Posted 11 June 2013 - 04:41 AM

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 11 June 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:


I have fear they'll say "ok, shooting up to 4 medium lasers together is fine". Add the 5th, and all the other 4 will heat you up 10% more each one. Add a sixth, each ml will heat up 7 points. Add an 8th and each ML will heat up like a ppc.

2 PPCs are fine? Add the third in the alpha and you'll heat up like shooting 5 or 6 of them together. Solution: 6 PPC stalkers will shoot 2 ppc each, they won't add you with 60 dmg in a single section, but there's a degree of possibility they'll still do this nevertheless, heating up like they do now.


As always no just one change is going to fix everything, and all sides have drawbacks simply due to the limitations and variation the pen and paper balance has once translated into realtime. Check my sig link for my thoughts...
Back to Archive · Next Unread Topic →


3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users