New Weapons, Please?
#41
Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:50 AM
#42
Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:53 AM
Quote
agreed. rifles would be good to fill the tonnage void between machine gun and AC2. they would give light mechs some ballistic alternatives besides machine guns.
but we also need more missile options. We need MRMs, ATMs, and different ammo types for SRMs/LRMs.
as for energy weapons, there are MORE than enough energy weapons. We dont need anymore of those.
#43
Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:53 AM
Then only big mechs could bring it with plenty of ammo.
#44
Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:00 PM
Khobai, on 04 March 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:
agreed. rifles would be good to fill the tonnage void between machine gun and AC2. they would give light mechs some ballistic alternatives besides machine guns.
but we also need more missile options. We need MRMs, ATMs, and different ammo types for SRMs/LRMs.
as for energy weapons, there are MORE than enough energy weapons. We dont need anymore of those.
+1 for more missile options.
#45
Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:09 PM
Metus regem, on 04 March 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:
-sigh- what I'm saying is flip it... give the charge to the PPC, or give it a longer charge time, and either leave the charge time or remove it from the Gauss, just do something to it to make it a less than idea brawling weapon.
I personally don't see a charge time on the PPC faimly as a bad thing, as it would make it more of a skill weapon.
Well, that's based on your opinion, and really, Gauss will never change. Gauss is always going to have multiple roles, and with Heavy Gauss?
Well, that brawling idea just went out the window.
mike29tw, on 04 March 2015 - 12:00 PM, said:
+1 for more missile options.
More Missiles I agree entirely. that way we dont see streak boats or LRM boats only. We can see multiple builds come from new missile weapons. the MRMs would be a fun one, being that you can bring 1 with you instead of 3-4 SRMs on a build, and do more pinpoint damage instead of spread.
Brody319, on 04 March 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:
Then only big mechs could bring it with plenty of ammo.
That being said, it's be great to have this kind of thing around, making the game more fun when in a group. I'd pay 2 million C-Bills to see 10 king Crabs Shooting Long Toms over the gate at their enemies... and they writhing in pain or hiding as they get hit.
#46
Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:12 PM
A heavy TAG laser. It weighs the same and takes up the same crit space, but does twice as much damage!
#47
Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:16 PM
#48
Posted 04 March 2015 - 12:48 PM
Metus regem, on 04 March 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:
PPC Capacitors come later in the time line: I say save the charge mechanic for them.
KraftySOT, on 04 March 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:
Shoot those at the "Death Mountain" on Alpine before anyone gets up there, and watch the enemy leg themselves walking over mines. Area denial would be one huge step forward for making games play out differently.
Nascar comes to a halt when you run into a minefield.
Yes, something to manipulate the battlefield like that would be nice. Make flamers and machine guns really effective at clearing the mines out (along with the mines showing up on radar with BAP).
Sniper Artillery Cannons and Thumper Cannons would likely be a better choice than the Long Tom; but indirect fire weapons are a pain to balance.
I would be nice to see Fluid Guns for spraying coolant, oil slicks, and napalm. I would be amusing to see a Raven or another light spraying more than the volume of its body but a PPC Awesome plus coolant spraying Fluid Gun light may be a balancing nightmare.
Also Mech Mortars to pop sight-and-radar-blocking-smoke and flares would nice but smoke can be turned off for the sake of PC performance: so technical issues.
The biggest obstacle is PGI needing to concentrate on balancing the core weapons before they deal with rares and exotics.
#49
#50
Posted 04 March 2015 - 01:02 PM
#52
Posted 04 March 2015 - 01:13 PM
#53
Posted 04 March 2015 - 01:16 PM
#54
Posted 04 March 2015 - 01:58 PM
(All are IS only unless specified)
Energy:
LAMS (Clan only)
Binary Laser Cannon
Ballistic:
Grenade Launcher
Light / Medium / Heavy Rifle
Missile:
Rocket Launcher 10 / 15 / 20
Mech Mortar 1 / 2 / 4/ 8
Artillery:
Any two+ of the following, though preferably AIV and Long Toms, there's no particular reason to have more than 2 though.
Arrow IV Artillery (IS+Clan) Missile
Sniper Artillery PieceBallistic
Thumper Artillery PieceBallistic
Long Tom Cannon Ballistic
Sniper Artillery Cannon Ballistic
Thumper Cannon Ballistic
This would then unlock more variants, and possibly some other mechs.
For the big things like the Artillery, the simplest way (in my mind), would be to make them 10 slots base, then have the rest as floating structure.
This means you don't worry about split crits in general, just on those specific massive weapons, and it still limits it to things that can take AC20's or such anyway, rather than worrying about a seperate Artillery Slot or anything.
#55
Posted 04 March 2015 - 02:01 PM
Scout Derek, on 04 March 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:
Yet we have Gauss Rifle charges. We never had Gauss Rifle charges in any of the Mechwarrior games, ever. so what about it makes the bombast laser a bad thing? would you prefer the PPC and Gauss King Crab or would you prefer the ERPPC and Gauss Rifle Dire Wolf Meta?
I would prefer that C-UAC's did the proper damage per shot.
#56
Posted 04 March 2015 - 02:28 PM
Edited by justin xiang, 04 March 2015 - 02:29 PM.
#57
Posted 04 March 2015 - 02:39 PM
same job as the LONG TOM but would actually fit on mechs currently with no Crit Splitting.
#58
Posted 04 March 2015 - 02:48 PM
justin xiang, on 04 March 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:
And anybody that played the mechwarrior series knows how much it could give this game variety.
I vote to go ALL the way to present timeline so we can all have our stone rhinos, Timberwolf II, Nova Cats, Maulers, our Bushwackers, our Hellhounds, our Dashers, and more.
My idea sounds more fun than yours that you have. Who wants to stay in the IS tech stone age when we can have supertech that can eat your boardgame like a Kit Kat?
#59
Posted 04 March 2015 - 03:12 PM
You wouldn't have to separate the matchmakers; if the new tech was OP then people would have a higher Elo in it and go up against harder opponents.
#60
Posted 04 March 2015 - 03:19 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



























