One of the reasons mechs die so fast in this game is the cycle times are ridiculously fast.
Back when they used to have the "Battletech Simulator" pods. . . cycle times were easily double what they are right now.
You should seriously double weapon cycle times across the board just to slow down the pace of the game a little, and make the game more like a big-stompy robot game, and less like a infantry-based FPS.
![](https://static.mwomercs.com/forums//public/style_images/master/icon_users.png)
![](http://static.mwomercs.com/img/house/steiner.png)
Double All Cycle Times!
Started by Death Mallet, Feb 22 2014 08:18 AM
8 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:18 AM
#2
Posted 22 February 2014 - 06:42 PM
Fire your PPC every 8 seconds? your gauss once every 10 seconds?
might need to double match times too
might need to double match times too
![;)](https://static.mwomercs.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
#3
Posted 22 February 2014 - 06:46 PM
I'm not sure doubling is the right amount to start with, and not every weapon should have a rate of fire nerf.
Leave standard SRMs and Pulse Lasers where they are now (though with a slight heat reduction to compensate for their higher heat per second). They're brawler weapons, and they need an edge in sustained damage output in close-range combat. MGs are good enough, and Flamers need a total rework.
Add a second or two to every other weapon (AC2 can top out at 1/second to keep it somewhat viable). This lowers overall dps, especially for the single-hit high-damage weapons. It also has the side effect of making each weapon cooler over time. Sure they'll generate the same heat per shot, but now they have more time for the heat sinks to work between volleys. That would make many of the mechanical problems of the current heat system go away.
Leave standard SRMs and Pulse Lasers where they are now (though with a slight heat reduction to compensate for their higher heat per second). They're brawler weapons, and they need an edge in sustained damage output in close-range combat. MGs are good enough, and Flamers need a total rework.
Add a second or two to every other weapon (AC2 can top out at 1/second to keep it somewhat viable). This lowers overall dps, especially for the single-hit high-damage weapons. It also has the side effect of making each weapon cooler over time. Sure they'll generate the same heat per shot, but now they have more time for the heat sinks to work between volleys. That would make many of the mechanical problems of the current heat system go away.
#4
Posted 22 February 2014 - 06:51 PM
Colonel Pada Vinson, on 22 February 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:
Fire your PPC every 8 seconds? your gauss once every 10 seconds?
might need to double match times too![;)](https://static.mwomercs.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
might need to double match times too
![;)](https://static.mwomercs.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
Meh...MW4 had around 6 to 8 second recycle times for the high alpha weapons and in no respawn matches on maps roughly the size of what we have now, most matches were under in 10 minutes and it was rare to see a match run the full 20 minutes our servers were set at when running no respawn.
#5
Posted 22 February 2014 - 07:15 PM
I agree on this. People would be more conservative with their shots and it would be a great buff to energy weapons (more time to cool down). Also brawling might happen more often.
Question is, would this cause more alpha striking or less? I can see brawler weapons having a relatively high RoF like now, but longer range weapons get increased cycle times.
Although I think a 50% increase of cycle time would be fine as well rather than a double increase.
Question is, would this cause more alpha striking or less? I can see brawler weapons having a relatively high RoF like now, but longer range weapons get increased cycle times.
Although I think a 50% increase of cycle time would be fine as well rather than a double increase.
#6
Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:08 PM
Maybe not double, but extend some of them. Some of them are ludicrously quick for the weapons themselves.
#7
Posted 23 February 2014 - 04:43 AM
TB Freelancer, on 22 February 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:
Meh...MW4 had around 6 to 8 second recycle times for the high alpha weapons and in no respawn matches on maps roughly the size of what we have now, most matches were under in 10 minutes and it was rare to see a match run the full 20 minutes our servers were set at when running no respawn.
Thanks for reminding me. I actually went and looked up weapons tables, and you are correct.
Upping recycle time by 25% across the board would seem an idea to lower burst DPS. But, it would also affect heat balance, double armour, etc.
for example it already can be quite hard to take down a single light in a bigger mech. with longer cycle times lights would probably live even longer. How would machine guns need to be nurfed for this?
etc etc.
#8
Posted 23 February 2014 - 05:05 AM
Longer cycle times would encourage higher pinpoint alphas, and more of them. Since you can only fire once per 8~ seconds, people would just pop, shoot, run to cool off, even more than they do now.
I agree with AC's in general getting longer reload timers. Which just got me thinking, The further the ammo is from the gun it's going to, would increase the reload time... Like, An AC2 with its ton of ammo in the same section would have its 0.5 reload, but 1 second if that ammo is in an adjacent section, increasing by up to 2~ seconds if its in a leg.
I agree with AC's in general getting longer reload timers. Which just got me thinking, The further the ammo is from the gun it's going to, would increase the reload time... Like, An AC2 with its ton of ammo in the same section would have its 0.5 reload, but 1 second if that ammo is in an adjacent section, increasing by up to 2~ seconds if its in a leg.
#9
Posted 23 February 2014 - 05:34 AM
I don't why people think mechs dont last long enough. Of course not when you get yourself focused by half the enemy team. 1 on 1 fights can last a good long time especially when both combatants know how to mitigate damage by torso twisting or jumping.
I think time to kill is just about right.
I think time to kill is just about right.
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users