43 replies to this topic

[Anjian]

I am guessing the weight requirements of triple Gauss would make it difficult for an 80 ton mech. The main purpose of adding more ballistic hardpoints for the 9A and 9A1 is for machine guns and furthermore, it doesn't appear that those extra ballistic hardpoints are going to be torso mounted. Following how the regular variants appeared in the game, all the ballistic points are going to be arm mounted with an equal number of slots you see on the 9B, 9K and 9S on MWO. Means you will likely at best, get double Gauss, and probably a pair of machine guns in the arms. Or do a multi AC2 or AC5 config with an assault, but with both arms.

Edited by Anjian, 22 July 2013 - 10:02 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Seriously this is a stupid post to be honest.

Lets start with the 9A

VTR-9A

RA = 1 Ballastic
LA = 2 Energy
RT = 2 Energy
LT = 1 Missile
LT = 1 Ballastic

Ok so you could technically run 2 AC/20s but so what? They are on two seperate crosshairs and with the heat scaling, you can't fire both simultanously, Dual Gauss, Ok fine no issue there. However either of those builds would put you short on being able to mount anything else.

Fine put this variant in but it is obviously nothing special.

VTR-9A1

Ok here is where it gets stupid.

RA = 1 Ballastic
LA = 2 Energy
LT = 1 Missile

RIGHT LEG = 1 Ballastic
LEFT LEG = 1 Ballastic

There are only 2 critical slots in each leg so you could mount a MG or an AC/2 in each leg if the game mechanics allowed it. Also it is like the rear mounted lasers that some mechs have..they don't serve a purpose in MWO. Leg mounted weapons would just be a stupid decision.

You aren't building a Dual AC/20, Dual Gauss machine out of this variant even if they added it to the game. Also you will notice only 3 ballastic slots, not 4.

I mean seriously do people not read the TROs before they post stupid speculation about things that wouldn't exist even if PGI added them?

Here it the link so you can all look at TROs.

http://users.anet.co...agan/equipment/

[Amsro]

Viktor Drake, on 22 July 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Seriously this is a stupid post to be honest.

Lets start with the 9A

VTR-9A

RA = 1 Ballastic
LA = 2 Energy
RT = 2 Energy
LT = 1 Missile
LT = 1 Ballastic

Ok so you could technically run 2 AC/20s but so what? They are on two seperate crosshairs and with the heat scaling, you can't fire both simultanously, Dual Gauss, Ok fine no issue there. However either of those builds would put you short on being able to mount anything else.

Fine put this variant in but it is obviously nothing special.

VTR-9A1

Ok here is where it gets stupid.

RA = 1 Ballastic
LA = 2 Energy
LT = 1 Missile

RIGHT LEG = 1 Ballastic
LEFT LEG = 1 Ballastic

There are only 2 critical slots in each leg so you could mount a MG or an AC/2 in each leg if the game mechanics allowed it. Also it is like the rear mounted lasers that some mechs have..they don't serve a purpose in MWO. Leg mounted weapons would just be a stupid decision.

You aren't building a Dual AC/20, Dual Gauss machine out of this variant even if they added it to the game. Also you will notice only 3 ballastic slots, not 4.

I mean seriously do people not read the TROs before they post stupid speculation about things that wouldn't exist even if PGI added them?

Here it the link so you can all look at TROs.

http://users.anet.co...agan/equipment/

They already have mechs in-game that have had their LEG or REAR facing weapons moved to the front and torso sections.

Safe to assume those hardpoints would also be moved into the torso from the legs.

But yes only 3 ballistic locations max, maybe 4 hardpoints, who knows. Either way PGI can't balance so this gets bypassed.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Amsro, on 22 July 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

They already have mechs in-game that have had their LEG or REAR facing weapons moved to the front and torso sections.

Safe to assume those hardpoints would also be moved into the torso from the legs.

But yes only 3 ballistic locations max, maybe 4 hardpoints, who knows. Either way PGI can't balance so this gets bypassed.

That is a big assumption. The rear facing weapons only got turned around to face forward. The actual location stays the same.

Also what is there to balance. That was the whole point of my post. The 9A only would probably have 2 Ballastic in the RA and 1 ballastic in the LT which is pretty much already what the Cataphract offers. Then lets take the 9A1 and move the two leg ballastics to the Right arm which gives us pretty much a 9B. I mean seriously, the wierd ballastic locations for the 9A1 are pretty obviously the reason why it didn't make it in.

However, what people seem to want to do is come up with some fantasy Victor variant that has 3-4 Ballastic Hardpoint located in the arms and side torso which doesn't exist then blame PGI for not implementing it due to an inability to balance it?? Seriously??

The 9A could be added and probably should as it won't change anything in the meta and it would give the Victor a bit more variety and fullness to the tree. I could get behind that with the following hardpoints:

VTR-9A

RA = 1 Ballastic
LA = 2 Energy
RT = 2 Energy
LT = 1 Missile
LT = 1 Ballastic

The 9A1 however doesn't fit the game mechanics and wouldn't provide the fantasy Victor you all seem to want anyway so absolutely not. Also I totally agree with PGI on the decision and that decision is not due to balancing.