20517 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Nik Reaper, on 01 April 2015 - 05:37 AM, said:

A neet cannon idea but it wouldn't work, that is, the metagame is about weapon balance and about how many a "best mech" at that time can mount of those , meaning that instead of having 2~4 mechs that are "meta" at that time, we would end up with 1 or 2 that come with the right restrictions to maximise those at the time "superior" weapons.

That means that some mechs will be a lot better then some others just because they have a larger slot for x weapon in y location and again even more restrictions and less mechs become viable.

To put it in paractice now when building mechs you look at number of type of hardpoints and there location and quirks , and we want to add to that harpoint size ? It would add flavor to varients and mechs, but that flavor would be sour for a large number of them as the stock base models are no where near meta and only some of them could be built to work, as far as IS goes anyway.

So more or less what we have now?

It's silly that the flamer mounts on the Thunderbolt 9S, can become ERPPC mounts, it's just silly and wrong. Or the Catapult K2, being able to turn those MG mounts into Gauss or AC 20's is just as silly and wrong....

My loveable Locust 1V should not be able to take the mount for the medium laser, and cram an ERLL in it's place.

If they did it the Lore way, with field kits, and only if you have a stupid amount of space bucks to do a total overhaul of a mech, should you be able to do a factory level refit. My current character in an on-going MW campaign has dumped close to 50 million c-bills into his Warhammer 6R, taking it from a 6R, to a DHS mounting, stealth armoured, LFE equipped and blazer toting beast, nearly 10 times what the mech is new.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 01 April 2015 - 07:34 AM, said:

So more or less what we have now?

It's silly that the flamer mounts on the Thunderbolt 9S, can become ERPPC mounts, it's just silly and wrong. Or the Catapult K2, being able to turn those MG mounts into Gauss or AC 20's is just as silly and wrong....

My loveable Locust 1V should not be able to take the mount for the medium laser, and cram an ERLL in it's place.

That's why we defended for so long the two-size hardpoints system. It would at least make mechs more unique and closer to the stock loadout.

It would also lessen the need of big quirks.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 01 April 2015 - 07:38 AM, said:

That's why we defended for so long the two-size hardpoints system. It would at least make mechs more unique and closer to the stock loadout.

It would also lessen the need of big quirks.

Having switched to IS, I can really see the appeal for sized hard points now, so I've changed my stance on them. I still think that hard point inflation was silly, and short sighted on the DEV team's part.

[CDLord HHGD]

Metus regem, on 01 April 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

Having switched to IS, I can really see the appeal for sized hard points now, so I've changed my stance on them. I still think that hard point inflation was silly, and short sighted on the DEV team's part.

For a while I had an idea of how I thought sized hardpoints should work, but being a stickler for lore, I really like Strum's. Being an IS player and one this would directly affect, I support it 100%.

[ShadowbaneX]

Odanan, on 31 March 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

Thanks for the bumping.

The Dragoons have enough mechs for their own pack:

The problem with the Flea is: if it has MASC, it will break the game's engine speed barrier. If it doesn't have MASC, it will just be a Locust clone... Can't we just forget this one?

Alex might be a genius, (he managed to make the Kintaro look non-horrible), but even he wouldn't stand a chance against the Hoplite. So no Dragoon's pack.

[Ovion]

http://tinyurl.com/UrbanmechArrives
Soon.


1 day, 7 hours, 30 minutes as of this post.

[zagibu]

cdlord, on 01 April 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

For a while I had an idea of how I thought sized hardpoints should work, but being a stickler for lore, I really like Strum's. Being an IS player and one this would directly affect, I support it 100%.

The only "problem" I see with Strum's suggestion is that for Omnimechs, the pod system would become a little less interesting, because all the pods would dictate is the number and size of the hardpoints in those locations. I think it would be hard to make a complete pod set for a mech, so that all pods are useful in some way.

I think in reality, type restriction makes sense, because ballistic hardpoints need an ammo feed and recoil dampening system, while energy hardpoints would need some kind of wiring/tubing/cooling/transforming components for the energy flow. Probably wouldn't be easy to rip these things out and switch them, even if you can easily remove the laser itself and replace it with a cannon.

[Ovion]

I made a summary for the Urbs:


Enjoy.

[Metus regem]

zagibu, on 06 April 2015 - 03:08 AM, said:

The only "problem" I see with Strum's suggestion is that for Omnimechs, the pod system would become a little less interesting, because all the pods would dictate is the number and size of the hardpoints in those locations. I think it would be hard to make a complete pod set for a mech, so that all pods are useful in some way.

I think in reality, type restriction makes sense, because ballistic hardpoints need an ammo feed and recoil dampening system, while energy hardpoints would need some kind of wiring/tubing/cooling/transforming components for the energy flow. Probably wouldn't be easy to rip these things out and switch them, even if you can easily remove the laser itself and replace it with a cannon.

The thing is, if you just look at the ballistic mounts alone, being able to replace a 20mm canon (MG) with a 200mm canon (AC20) doesn't make sense. The feed system, dampening system and the hole in the armour for the barrel would all be wrong, for a change like that. Yet it is one of the most common changes the player base does to the catapult K2.

Onmi pods really should just be pod space. As the whole idea behind them, is that clan weapons and equipment is all plug and play.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 06 April 2015 - 04:13 AM, said:

The thing is, if you just look at the ballistic mounts alone, being able to replace a 20mm canon (MG) with a 200mm canon (AC20) doesn't make sense. The feed system, dampening system and the hole in the armour for the barrel would all be wrong, for a change like that. Yet it is one of the most common changes the player base does to the catapult K2.

Onmi pods really should just be pod space. As the whole idea behind them, is that clan weapons and equipment is all plug and play.

Still, that wouldn't work well for MWO. All the Configuration would be the same.

Honestly, I'm very happy with the PGI's implementation of the omnimechs.
What I don't like much is the level of customization in the IS mechs (should be more restricted, specially in changing the engine).

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 06 April 2015 - 04:27 AM, said:

Still, that wouldn't work well for MWO. All the Configuration would be the same.

Honestly, I'm very happy with the PGI's implementation of the omnimechs.
What I don't like much is the level of customization in the IS mechs (should be more restricted, specially in changing the engine).

The thing is, right now, 9 out of 10 Timber Wolves are the same build, laser vomit. So I fail to see how just having pod space would be an issue for Omni-mechs. I mean they would still have the fixed armour and or structure points, along with the fixed things hard wired equipment, that they should have.

As for the IS, I totally agree.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Metus regem, on 06 April 2015 - 05:45 AM, said:

The thing is, right now, 9 out of 10 Timber Wolves are the same build, laser vomit...

Really, Clan mechs in general. It is a huge reminder of how badly the clans need ballistic quirks for certain chassis.

I'd say serious ballistic buffs in general, but the Dire Wolf exists, so serious ballistic quirks on many Clan chassis instead.

[Metus regem]

MeiSooHaityu, on 06 April 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

Really, Clan mechs in general. It is a huge reminder of how badly the clans need ballistic quirks for certain chassis.

I'd say serious ballistic buffs in general, but the Dire Wolf exists, so serious ballistic quirks on many Clan chassis instead.

That's why I flipped sides, I got so tired of Laser vomit being the only 'viable' build on most of the mechs, even mechs that were known for PPC's, couldn't do PPC's well... Timber Wolf D and Warhawk Prime, I'm looking at you too....

Mechs like the Summoner are know for having one big ballistic weapon in the LA... and I wish, that we never got the Timber Wolf S... the Summoner should be chose for that like to use Jump Jets, I mean the mech is known for being jump capable, and very nimble because of it.

That said, Clan Balistics are going to be hard to fix, as any adjustment you make to them, will be exacerbated by the Dire Wolf, since she can mount so many of them, effectively.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Metus regem, on 06 April 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

That's why I flipped sides, I got so tired of Laser vomit being the only 'viable' build on most of the mechs, even mechs that were known for PPC's, couldn't do PPC's well... Timber Wolf D and Warhawk Prime, I'm looking at you too....

Mechs like the Summoner are know for having one big ballistic weapon in the LA... and I wish, that we never got the Timber Wolf S... the Summoner should be chose for that like to use Jump Jets, I mean the mech is known for being jump capable, and very nimble because of it.

That said, Clan Balistics are going to be hard to fix, as any adjustment you make to them, will be exacerbated by the Dire Wolf, since she can mount so many of them, effectively.

I agree about the Timberwolf S. A JJ capable Timberwolf should have been left out.

Its either ballistics quirks for many clan chassis, or a general buff to clan ballistics and negative ballistic quirks to the Dire Wolf. Which ever.

[Metus regem]

MeiSooHaityu, on 06 April 2015 - 07:20 AM, said:

I agree about the Timberwolf S. A JJ capable Timberwolf should have been left out.

Its either ballistics quirks for many clan chassis, or a general buff to clan ballistics and negative ballistic quirks to the Dire Wolf. Which ever.

I think the thing, that the Clan UAC's need, is a shorter burst, 2-3 round bursts for the UAC's I think would be ideal, with maybe a faster travel time for the rounds. Then apply quirks to things like reload speed and jam chance... I'd also handle the jams differently, on a jam, it just dumps an amount of rounds equal to one trigger pull, rather than resetting the cool down.

[Odanan]

I wish the Clan ballistics had fewer rounds per burst... Well, at least the Clan "Autocannons" (AKA LB-X with slug ammo) should be single project, like the IS ones. Right now, they are pretty bad.

For balance, Dire Wolf B side torsos should have some expressive negative ballistic quirks.

(And I wouldn't mind if the IS UACs were burst fire, like the Clan ones... that would make sense)

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 06 April 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

I wish the Clan ballistics had fewer rounds per burst... Well, at least the Clan "Autocannons" (AKA LB-X with slug ammo) should be single project, like the IS ones. Right now, they are pretty bad.

For balance, Dire Wolf B side torsos should have some expressive negative ballistic quirks.

(And I wouldn't mind if the IS UACs were burst fire, like the Clan ones... that would make sense)

I really hope when the IS get the UAC 2/10/20 they are burst like the Clan versions, since they are reverse engineered off of Clan tech...

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 06 April 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

I wish the Clan ballistics had fewer rounds per burst... Well, at least the Clan "Autocannons" (AKA LB-X with slug ammo) should be single project, like the IS ones. Right now, they are pretty bad.

For balance, Dire Wolf B side torsos should have some expressive negative ballistic quirks.

(And I wouldn't mind if the IS UACs were burst fire, like the Clan ones... that would make sense)

Metus regem, on 06 April 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

I really hope when the IS get the UAC 2/10/20 they are burst like the Clan versions, since they are reverse engineered off of Clan tech...

Frankly, it should be the other way around - the IS ACs should be changed into burst-fire weapons!

EVERY canonical description describes Standard ACs as burst-fire weapons (even each of the massive 185mm AC/20s of the Demolisher tank need to fire 4 shells to do a total of 20 units of damage), and the BT gameplay rules (specifically, the expanded/advanced rules found in TacOps) make clear that they (along with LB-X ACs in "slug mode", Light ACs, and Hyper-Velocity ACs) fire in bursts that can be walked across multiple targets.
(The TacOps rules indicate that LB-X ACs in "cluster mode" fire a single shotshell that can strike a second target with any submunitions that miss the first.)

The only ambiguous cases - the only cases that could allow for single-solid-shell-salvo ACs - are with the UACs and RACs (e.g. the weapons that could fire multiple "units of ammo" in a single TT turn, but could not walk the salvo from a single "unit of ammo" across multiple targets).
And, even then, it could be argued that they are simply firing more compressed bursts (e.g. firing a similar number of shells per burst as their Standard counterparts, with the burst duration of UACs and RACs being substantially shorter and the double/quadruple/sextuple ROF settings of those weapons representing a shortening of the time between the end of one burst and the beginning of the next).

[Metus regem]

Strum Wealh, on 06 April 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

Frankly, it should be the other way around - the IS ACs should be changed into burst-fire weapons!

EVERY canonical description describes Standard ACs as burst-fire weapons (even each of the massive 185mm AC/20s of the Demolisher tank need to fire 4 shells to do a total of 20 units of damage), and the BT gameplay rules (specifically, the expanded/advanced rules found in TacOps) make clear that they (along with LB-X ACs in "slug mode", Light ACs, and Hyper-Velocity ACs) fire in bursts that can be walked across multiple targets.
(The TacOps rules indicate that LB-X ACs in "cluster mode" fire a single shotshell that can strike a second target with any submunitions that miss the first.)

The only ambiguous cases - the only cases that could allow for single-solid-shell-salvo ACs - are with the UACs and RACs (e.g. the weapons that could fire multiple "units of ammo" in a single TT turn, but could not walk the salvo from a single "unit of ammo" across multiple targets).
And, even then, it could be argued that they are simply firing more compressed bursts (e.g. firing a similar number of shells per burst as their Standard counterparts, with the burst duration of UACs and RACs being substantially shorter and the double/quadruple/sextuple ROF settings of those weapons representing a shortening of the time between the end of one burst and the beginning of the next).

I know.... I know....

But there is lore precedent for a single shell cUAC, the Ebon Jaguar Alt. A, mounted a 203mm single shell UAC.

Edited by Metus regem, 06 April 2015 - 10:22 AM.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 06 April 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

Frankly, it should be the other way around - the IS ACs should be changed into burst-fire weapons!

EVERY canonical description describes Standard ACs as burst-fire weapons (even each of the massive 185mm AC/20s of the Demolisher tank need to fire 4 shells to do a total of 20 units of damage), and the BT gameplay rules (specifically, the expanded/advanced rules found in TacOps) make clear that they (along with LB-X ACs in "slug mode", Light ACs, and Hyper-Velocity ACs) fire in bursts that can be walked across multiple targets.
(The TacOps rules indicate that LB-X ACs in "cluster mode" fire a single shotshell that can strike a second target with any submunitions that miss the first.)

The only ambiguous cases - the only cases that could allow for single-solid-shell-salvo ACs - are with the UACs and RACs (e.g. the weapons that could fire multiple "units of ammo" in a single TT turn, but could not walk the salvo from a single "unit of ammo" across multiple targets).
And, even then, it could be argued that they are simply firing more compressed bursts (e.g. firing a similar number of shells per burst as their Standard counterparts, with the burst duration of UACs and RACs being substantially shorter and the double/quadruple/sextuple ROF settings of those weapons representing a shortening of the time between the end of one burst and the beginning of the next).

That would be more lore accurate. Still, I think it would be easier (in terms of QQ) for PGI to make the Clan ACs better than make the IS ACs worst... Anyway, if you look at the MWO's UACs, the are multi-barreled, something more akin to shooting bursts...