21 replies to this topic

[Lynx7725]

Unikron, on 04 March 2015 - 09:14 PM, said:

I am even kinda surprised they still didn't implement those large powerful rockets into the game, even though they are part of the arsenal.

I so want to see those Arrow IV/Thunderbolt stuff

IIRC, Thunderbolt's timeline is a bit off, so it may not show up soon. Arrow IV is meant to be on-board artillery, so translating it into the MWO scheme can lead to very strange situations.

Certainly, I can see certain.. complaints... when 4 Arrow IV missiles slam into the chest of an assault and leave only the legs twitching.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 04 March 2015 - 07:33 PM, said:

MW4 did have some nice treatment of LRMs. I like the visuals of MWO, but what MW4 did wonderfully was reduce any LRM salvo into "chunks" of 5. Each chunk of missiles were treated as a single object, and would hit a single component. Each AMS would knock out one chunk of missiles. So if you had an LRM15, it fired three "chunks" and would deal three focused 5 point hits, however a single AMS would knock out an entire 5 point cluster per launcher fired, meaning only two of the three 5 point chunks would hit an AMS equipped mech.

AMS was more balanced when it was randomized.

Outside of that, MW4 made LRM5s useful without needing better recycle rates or accuracy because it allowed you to actually fire an entire salvo as a massive chunk at the cost of heat efficiency. The smaller racks traded heat efficiency for strong missile packets.

Lexx, on 04 March 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:

We can't have any nice graphics in MWO, or destructible terrain, or collisions

because,

someone with a low end PC that can barely run the game might start lagging and quit.

Wrong, a good engine/game can scale effectively which has been the problem with MWO, nice try though.