45 replies to this topic

[Angel of Annihilation]

**** Shipley, on 06 October 2016 - 10:30 PM, said:

Even laser ams would be 10x better than any new mech pack in terms of what mwo players really want. I could be wrong, however.

Yeah I have been thinking how things are getting kind of stale. Honestly I am a bit meched out right now with only a very few mechs being on my radar as something I want purchase any more. New weapons tech would be great because it would change up the meta and I could spend hours and hours perfecting new builds for all the mechs that I do own. Also there would probably be quite a few old mechs that I have sold off or have dismissed that might actually become interesting with the introduction of new weapons.

Mole, on 07 October 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

If they introduced laser AMS I'd actually put some effort into building AMS onto my builds. The biggest reason I don't carry AMS is because sure it's only 0.5 tons for the system but you need at least one ton of ammo. Most of my builds don't have that to spare for such little return. But you give me an AMS that has no ammo and just costs me 0.5 tons and I can just turn it off if its getting too hot? Sure, I'll do that.

Yeah, due to how hot most mechs run, I will almost always take a single extra DHS over a ton of AMS ammo any day. In fact I can usually shave another half ton off armor and get 2 DHS for the price of losing out on the AMS and that is a real bargain.

[Nightops25]

**** Shipley, on 07 October 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

I like the little red bolts! Functionally though, I was thinking of something a bit simpler, both for the player and devs sake. It would have similar performance to current ams but at a higher tonnage. It would sort of be it's own self contained system so no heat or energy draw and no ammo limitations. Not terribly different than current ams, just a different flavor

The AMS we have isn't worth the tonnage it costs

[Mcgral18]

Nightops25, on 07 October 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

The AMS we have isn't worth the tonnage it costs

It's more that LRMs are so ineffective that it isn't worth the cost

[Gas Guzzler]

Iterative weapon balance, THEN new weapons?

[Felbombling]

The last time we saw new weapons introduced into the game was the Clan Wave 1 package release. Three possible reasons for this...

• PGI lacks the ability due to current staffing.
  
• PGI is comfortable with the current game and does not want to shift balance.
  
• PGI is trying to stick to some concrete timeline.

At any rate, I'm getting bored, so I sure hope they get off their butts and inject some new life into the game. They have access to all the weapon stats from source material, so I don't see what the hold up is.

[dario03]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 October 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Iterative weapon balance, THEN new weapons?

They've had 4+ years to balance IS and 2+ to balance clans. No reason to think that we will ever have perfect balance so might as well give us some new weapons so we can at least have some variety. Plus there is nothing that says that new weapons have to completely obsolete current weapons or that new weapons means no more balancing.

[FupDup]

Juodas Varnas, on 06 October 2016 - 11:17 PM, said:

What we need is Quadrupeds!
They'd add much more variety and flavor to the game than any amount of "new" weapons

Your obsession with quads is really starting to sound a lot like Imperius' fettish with the Mad Cat Mk. 2.

It was funny at first, but it's gotten pretty old by now.

[Bombast]

StaggerCheck, on 07 October 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

PGI is trying to stick to some concrete timeline.

Are they, though? The Bushwacker's official release isn't until 3053, but if I'm reading the timeline correctly, it will only be 3052 when the players get it. It's not far off, but it's a bit questionable.

I suppose the question will be answered when they decide whether to release the Mad Cat Mk II. From what I hear, some of the people at PGI want to do it, and soon.

If they do, that'll be the final kick to the balls that kills the notion of a timeline.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 October 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Iterative weapon balance, THEN new weapons?

Why not both, at the same time?

After all, if they give us a weapon family a month, they really should do that anyway.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 October 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 October 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Why not both, at the same time?

[Juodas Varnas]

FupDup, on 07 October 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

Your obsession with quads is really starting to sound a lot like Imperius' fettish with the Mad Cat Mk. 2.

It was funny at first, but it's gotten pretty old by now.

[Trollfeed]

Their insistence that 1 clan mech equals 1 IS mech means that light fusion engines are needed. Additionally implementing missing IS er and ultra weapons would make balancing much easier.

And don't diss quads, they're cool.

Edited by Trollfeed, 07 October 2016 - 09:31 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 October 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Why not both, at the same time?

After all, if they give us a weapon family a month, they really should do that anyway.

I'm on board with that. I want me some MRMs and heavy lasers.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 October 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

I'm on board with that. I want me some MRMs and heavy lasers.

I wouldn't expect MRMs anytime soon, their netcode won't be able to handle massive amounts of MRMs like you might see from some teams unless they actually decide to do MRM "packets" similar to MW4.

[Ryokens leap]

PGI hasn't balanced the weapons they have atm, more would just be messier.

[Gas Guzzler]

Ryokens leap, on 07 October 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

PGI hasn't balanced the weapons they have atm, more would just be messier.

After a couple iterations it would probably be close enough. Honestly, there is a small list of underperformers right now, the weapon imbalance is a bit overstated IMO.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 October 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I wouldn't expect MRMs anytime soon, their netcode won't be able to handle massive amounts of MRMs like you might see from some teams unless they actually decide to do MRM "packets" similar to MW4.

Lame. I mean, if the netcode can handle 60 LRMs, it should be okay?

[Mole]

Ryokens leap, on 07 October 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

PGI hasn't balanced the weapons they have atm, more would just be messier.

By this logic we are never going to get any new tech at all because let's be honest, PGI is never going to achieve balance.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 07 October 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

Lame. I mean, if the netcode can handle 60 LRMs, it should be okay?

Yeah, but for the tonnage that it takes to mount 60 LRMs, you can potentially mount 90 MRMs, so you are still scaling up the potential number of projectiles which is dangerous given how finicky hit reg already is (and how you can lag the server).

[blood4blood]

I started listed weapons from prior MW games off the top of my head when I realized there's a better source: http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists

It doesn't seem that MWO is following BT's timeline as PGI originally planned anyway, so I can't see any reason at this point to limit things in MWO based on a BT timeline they aren't even following.

[Nightops25]

Mcgral18, on 07 October 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

It's more that LRMs are so ineffective that it isn't worth the cost

Even well executed LRM's (narc/tag/UAV and sharing locks), one AMS is garbage. You need 2-3 to really minimize incoming LRM from a single boat, or a cluster of mechs all sharing AMS. If you were up against an organized group of all LRM and spotters like 228 did in the last FW event, then no amount of AMS could protect you if you were lit up on radar.

Cover and concealment are the real counters to LRMs