ReXspec, on 06 August 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:
Neither can a stock Warhawk, but a classic Warhawk was never meant to fire ALL of it's PPC's at once. It was meant to fire them in succession, or put both PPC's on both arms on separate firing groups.
A stock warhawk could alpha strike all it's PPCs. It would be catastrophic, but it could. In this case what I'm saying is that the alpha strike button on the dashboard, doesn't work.
Jungle Rhino, on 07 August 2014 - 03:02 AM, said:
I been playing quite a lot of tabletop BT lately and thinking about the conversion from the turn based game to MWO which is essentially a real time simulation. There are some pretty core game concepts, the vast majority of which PGI have transferred across quite faithfully but there are few things that are missing notably:
Shooting accuracy is a function of a number of things including target speed, range, concealment - all of which are represented reasonably well in MWO. The thing missing is an accuracy penalty for the shooting target moving. In TT stationary mechs have no penalty, walking mechs +1, running mechs +2, jumping mechs +3.
This is a very important concept because it forces you to trade accuracy for mobility. MWO desperately needs a dynamic weapon cone of fire mechanic that brings this trade off to prevent front load damage ruling. If you limit accuracy on the move you increase the amount of exposure time a high FLD build needs to get accurate shots away. No more ridge-tarting or corner shooting with high precision. You can still use these tactics of course but If you want to rock back and forwards out of cover without waiting for your guns to settle you won't be shooting as accurately.
It just seems to make such an enormous amount of sense and I really can't understand why Paul hasn't gone down this route. Or if he has why was it abandoned? The direction that PGI are heading I am very concerned that the 'simulation' is going to be whittled away by all these abstract concepts such as ghost heat that are not intuitive and quite frankly confusing especially for new players.
You've been here since closed beta. How about they just re-implement the scaling convergence they used to have back then?
Karyu, on 07 August 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:
Would it not be much simpler to get rid of the charge mechanic on Gauss and simply totally lock out the ability to fire anything else at the same time with perhaps a .5 second lockout after firing? Then in turn apply the same concept to PPC's, but instead of 1 PPC, if you fire 2 or more (or limit it to 2 max) you have the same lock out. The concept is just as easily justified with the "heavy power draw" explanation. Hell if you wanted to really get interesting, S/M/H mech generators could only be able to handle the draw of firing 1 Gauss, while assaults could handle firing two simultaneously. Again, easily applied to PPC's as well.
Nope. I'm guessing you weren't here when Gauss was the ultimate weapon, because you could hit people at nearly 2K with one click, and if someone got close you have lightning speed 15 points of damage in a brawl. In fact, I remember Gauss was used more for brawling.
The charge mechanic is what's keeping gauss from comboing with every weapon we have right now, and also giving it proper use for it's intended purpose, a sniping weapon. With the charge removed, everyone will be using gauss for brawling again.
ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:
Okay. I see what you did. You essentially reset DHS to their original values, while upscaling the cooling rate. That is rather clever, but, if you do that, then you also have to scale back the ghost heat emitted from all weapon systems.
Otherwise, 'mechs would constantly shut down. Even with the buffed cooling rate.
Actually, I don't think Ghost heat would need to be implemented at all.
That's a max of 3 standard PPCs fired in one salvo, or 2 ERPPCs. In both cases causing a shut down for a couple of seconds.
Anyone that thinks the system makes ballistics really strong, is beginning to understand how the combat in BT was supposed to go.
You either go with the safe option of ballistics, and sacrifice a lot of tonnage and slots for ammo and guns, while risking ammo explosions ... etc. Or go with the risky option of energy weapons, where you'll be safe from ballistic associated problems, but have to deal with high heat from these massive energy cannons.
Or missiles that are more of the middle ground in terms of slots, heat, and tonnage costs.