

Center Torso Hitboxes And Tin Foil Hats
#1
Posted 18 September 2013 - 02:15 PM
XL engines cost a boatload of cbills... Leaving you less cbills to buy new mechs.
This means more incentive to purchase new mechs with MC instead of cbills, which are already in shorter supply due to the rewards changes.
Tin foil hat or brilliant marketing strategy?
#2
Posted 18 September 2013 - 02:17 PM
#3
Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:51 PM

#4
Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:06 PM
#5
Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:49 PM
Deathlike, on 18 September 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:
I agree there needs to be some variety. I don't mind certain chassis being better suited to XL than standard, there just seems to be a pattern emerging...
Anyway, I'm reasonably certain they only "fixed" the Kintaro because a bunch of people spent real money on them.
The anger over something like the Awesome has just turned into painful acceptance. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it'll ever get revised.
Edited by MisterFiveSeven, 18 September 2013 - 04:49 PM.
#6
Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:37 PM
then again is there a such thing as perfect balance? never seen that in a vedio game
theres nothing to loose but your own ego so just enjoy the game
Edited by MadCat02, 18 September 2013 - 05:38 PM.
#7
Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:48 PM
#9
Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:14 PM
#10
Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:18 PM

#11
Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:20 PM

#12
Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:35 PM
#13
Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:35 PM
It may also be a trade-off. Smaller RT/LT's mean there is less armor neccessary in these locations, no matter which engine type you choose. It also means that the weapons mounted in the LT/RT are less susceptible to destruction.
#14
Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:43 PM
I would like it if the hit-boxes overlapped slightly so the damage gets spread out a bit more realistically. Mechs would last a little longer too, maybe fewer weapon nerfs would be needed.
#16
Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:01 PM
This allow me to trim almost 2ton of armour from side torsos to field XL engine, more weapon or DHS, it is a like free endo steel that doesn't take any crit space.
#17
Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:41 PM
MisterFiveSeven, on 18 September 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:
Well, that and the CT was actually 90% of the mech (a little exaggeration, but let's be honest, it was the sure bet to core one).
Quote
Well, if you whine long and hard enough, you might get your way... see Raven.
Krivvan, on 18 September 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:
The Jenner's large CT is its own problem, but considering it is arguably the best light on the field, it's hard to ask for a buff for the most useful light in the game.
The Dragon... I'm biased to the Quickdraw... and despite it being "larger than life" at times, it's better than the Dragon's seemingly "easy to core from any direction". Although, it does have a playstyle difference...
#18
Posted 18 September 2013 - 08:57 PM
Deathlike, on 18 September 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:
I agree, it's the one main downside to the Jenner that makes the other lights at least somewhat viable in comparison.
#19
Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:15 PM
Besides there's bigger things to argue about.
PGI/IGP has some real shady business ethics. Absolute Maximum cash grab and absolute minimum customer relations care.
But you usually pick up that practice when you work with a minimum viable product model.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users