106 replies to this topic

[Lugin]

Hit the Deck, on 11 April 2016 - 08:28 PM, said:

• allowing IS 'Mechs to equip AC/20 with LFE (not possible with isXL)

I will point out that this is an artifact of MWO. In TT, you can split certain weapons between two sections. Specifically, all class 20 autocannon, (i)Heavy Gauss, and artillery pieces like the Long Tom and Arrow IV.

Kind of important for some IS omni configs that mount an LBX 20.
Heck, they sidestepped the issue with the King Crab by removing its lower arm and hand actuators.

[Hit the Deck]

Lugin, on 12 April 2016 - 02:12 AM, said:

I will point out that this is an artifact of MWO. In TT, you can split certain weapons between two sections. Specifically, all class 20 autocannon, (i)Heavy Gauss, and artillery pieces like the Long Tom and Arrow IV.

Kind of important for some IS omni configs that mount an LBX 20.
Heck, they sidestepped the issue with the King Crab by removing its lower arm and hand actuators.

Yeah, Russ said that they don't want implement "crit splitting".

[Tarogato]

List of IS mechs that I would rebuild to use LFE instead of XL or STD:


-
-
-
-
-
-






... well shjt. Hurry up and bring in the LFE's dang it! _</s>

[Hit the Deck]

Tarogato, on 12 April 2016 - 02:42 AM, said:

List of IS mechs that I would rebuild to use LFE instead of XL or STD:
...

On top of my head, mine would be:

• HBK-4G the BOOM carrier
  
• MAL-1P the dual Gauss wannabe sniper
  
• KGC-000 the Dakka boat
  
• HGN-733C the jumping Atlas
  
• and maybe a Banshee or Battlemaster

Right, all of them have standard engines currently except the last one.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The problem ISN'T that some mechs are too slow, It's that the rest of them are too fast.

PGI makes mechs too fast, so People realize being faster makes you live longer, so they equip XL engines, but they die easily so they complain they need more firepower, so PGI adds mechs with better and more hardpoints, then everyone dies even faster so people complain they need more structure, so PGI adds quirks, then people compain they can't kill fast enough, so PGI powercreeps again, then people complain they die too easy, so PGI creates mechs with derptarded hitboxes....etc...etc....etc

MWO is bleeding players, and it's not going to stop until PGI wakes up and realizes they need to make this a slow paced, tactical, mech sim.

They can't compete with twitchy fast paced shooters, so they need to stop wasting their time listening to FPS fans.

Edit: Adding clan tech, OP lights, XL engines, and all the other "but it's lore blerg" has done nothing but harm the game in the long run. It's just one reactionary circle jerk adjustment after another. Let. It. Go.

Edited by The Atlas Overlord, 12 April 2016 - 03:05 AM.

[kesmai]

Can I has bacon for me cockpit, pwetty pwease ?

[Metus regem]

CK16, on 11 April 2016 - 09:26 PM, said:

Yea except adding these would totally invalidate IS XL engines...that is nothing something ok with new tech IMO is there should be reasons to use some of the old weapons...At least some of the others have trade offs, like tonnage, heat, range compared to existing, Light fusion engines just totally obsolete XL though and that is the large issue. Unless XL get a little added structure quirks if equipped or something.

Maybe they could make Light Fusion very prone to explosion kinda deal right? Very unstable? (Maybe BRIGHT LIGHT EXPLOSIONS? )

CK, the LFE only obsoletes the standard Engine for the IS, and even then not really by much. The XL still saves the most weight (50% engine weight vs 75% engine weight of the LFE). The LFE just becomes more valad on mechs that lack head or CT weapons, not that being reduced to being a stick with legs has nice value in MWO these days.

[kapusta11]

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 02:53 AM, said:

On top of my head, mine would be:

• HBK-4G the BOOM carrier
  
• MAL-1P the dual Gauss wannabe sniper
  
• KGC-000 the Dakka boat
  
• HGN-733C the jumping Atlas
  
• and maybe a Banshee or Battlemaster

Right, all of them have standard engines currently except the last one.

I think that little </s> meant sarcasm. LFE would obsolete STD engines and in some cases make it more preferable compared to XL engine. You can build a Banshee with LFE380, 3x LPL, 5x ML and 21 DHS or a BK with the same loadout except for LFE325 and 19 DHS or Quad UAC5 Mauler with LFE325 and 9t of ammo.

Edited by kapusta11, 12 April 2016 - 04:29 AM.

[Metus regem]

Shadowomega1, on 12 April 2016 - 12:11 AM, said:

Well if they did want to add LFE to the game, its current setting is way too early, the current year is suppose to be 3053. LFE was first introduced in 3062, and Russ doesn't want to push the timeline forward till he hits bottom barrel of the mechs that came in 3053 and before.

@Khobia the XL mechanic was strait up disregarded in Mechwarrior 3 and 4, cause a person's aim has a far higher chance to hit side torsos then rolling the dice on a table top. If that rule was in those games, sniper mechs would have been the meta, and not just a decent build. I remember many times of having a match stick Timberwolf with a medium laser or two in the ct and still fighting.

The LFE prototypes were around in 3053 and availabile to the Wolf's Dragoons by Blackwell Industries.

The way I'd offer them in MWO right now, is at 200/300/400 engine sizes. After the coming time skip (post phase 3), depending on how much of a skip, I'd open up the range to either every 50 or 25 at the extream.

[Rushin Roulette]

Well, seeing as the IS already have loads of STDs, LFEs would not make too much sense. How about instead adding a Light Oxygenating Laser (makes your mech rust and is known as a LOL) or a Large Maser Attack ordinance (better artillery strikes, also known as LMAO). Another thing to add would be the Light surprize decapitator (Blinds you with funky colours and then kills you with a cockpit shot, also known as LSD).

[Hit the Deck]

kapusta11, on 12 April 2016 - 04:14 AM, said:

I think that little </s> meant sarcasm.

I knew what he meant

[Bishop Steiner]

Lugin, on 12 April 2016 - 02:12 AM, said:

I will point out that this is an artifact of MWO. In TT, you can split certain weapons between two sections. Specifically, all class 20 autocannon, (i)Heavy Gauss, and artillery pieces like the Long Tom and Arrow IV.

Kind of important for some IS omni configs that mount an LBX 20.
Heck, they sidestepped the issue with the King Crab by removing its lower arm and hand actuators.

actually they simply followed the ORIGINAL 2750 TRO specs for the KGC, which had neither actuator. And since the Claws are not a manipulative hand of any sort, it works and makes sense.



first paragraph under "Capabilities" even calls it "handless arms", and other TROs describe the claws as simple armored covers for the guns. FASA was notoriously terrible at editing. The original Record Sheets for the TRO listed it with hand actuators. Of course the original Record Sheets listed the Rifleman, Marauder and Warhammer with a full actuator suite (right down to the hands) which clearly was wrong to. Basically it's a proofreading typo that "became" lore.

Hit the Deck, on 12 April 2016 - 02:53 AM, said:

On top of my head, mine would be:

• HBK-4G the BOOM carrier
  
• MAL-1P the dual Gauss wannabe sniper
  
• KGC-000 the Dakka boat
  
• HGN-733C the jumping Atlas
  
• and maybe a Banshee or Battlemaster

Right, all of them have standard engines currently except the last one.

And all Archers, Thunderbolts and Orions.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 April 2016 - 09:54 PM, said:

Yeah, my Banshee probably would not need it, but I could see others that would use it, and a fair bit of IS mechs do run STDs even with the lower firepower because of the instagib factor. Maybe not as much in comp team play, but that's what....5% of the playerbase, generously?

Don't get me wrong, I would happily run it on a couple Shadow Hawks and most of my Hunchbacks, but let's not try and say it will improve balance because I don't think it would have that large of an impact.

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

And all Archers, Thunderbolts, Orions.

I actually forgot about the Orions, yeah they would love for that to happen, that may actually allow them to be a suitable brawler in the meta.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2016 - 05:10 AM, said:

And all Archers, Thunderbolts and Orions.

I know my Warhammers would be on board for LFE's....

[Lugh]

There will be no reason to run clan mechs ever again should this be done.

IS Uber alles.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Khobai, on 11 April 2016 - 10:18 PM, said:

Thats why the game needs crit splitting like tabletop allowed. Where you can split the AC20 between the torso and the arm.

That also opens up the possibility of adding weapons like long toms and arrow IV to the game.

Apparently there are issues getting that to work for reasons. Or PGI felt lazy.

It'd be easy enough to move a couple critical slots from the ST to the arm though for certain mechs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lugh, on 12 April 2016 - 05:44 AM, said:

There will be no reason to run clan mechs ever again should this be done.

IS Uber alles.

Except for the fact that LFEs still cost more weight than Clam XL, both sides need to stop acting like this changes balance extensively, because it doesn't, it just may allow more IS mechs to be a bit more competitive with whats top end already.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 12 April 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

Apparently there are issues getting that to work for reasons.

It is just programming it, which could be very difficult without refactoring depending on how they coded everything. Them fixing that problem though is what is keeping us from true artillery weapons.

It would also suck to have your torso open only to lose your AC20 to a crit when your arm is fully armored and it fires from your low arm.

[Escef]

LFE would open up a lot of possibilities for the Archer. As is, most of us seem to consider XL engines too risky for something with the Archer's hitboxes. But a LFE would make it more like the Mad Dog. Sure, take a side, even with half a mech I outgun you.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2016 - 06:45 AM, said:

It is just programming it, which could be very difficult without refactoring depending on how they coded everything. Them fixing that problem though is what is keeping us from true artillery weapons.

It would also suck to have your torso open only to lose your AC20 to a crit when your arm is fully armored and it fires from your low arm.

I was gonna insert the actual reasons once I found the quote from the devs... but since that was apparently on the old beta forums it's been lost to time.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 12 April 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

I was gonna insert the actual reasons once I found the quote from the devs...

I guarantee it is solvable, they just don't see it as worth the time to work on it since it may involve refactoring a sizeable amount of their existing code (which can be painful).