49 replies to this topic

[Kargush]

Heavy gauss. My body is so very, very ready.

If they introduce the Fafnir, I'll throw money at them.

Oh, and heavy lasers? Come to Daddy...

[Bombast]

StaggerCheck, on 16 January 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

Thunderbolt Missile Launcher... I do not see an option for it in the poll. Please fix so I can vote!!1!2!!

The Thunderbolt Launcher is considered experimental tech, and thus, like the Bombast Laser (Sadly) excluded. Rated Thunderbolt Launcers are not introduced until 3072.

[Lebarbu]

Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle

http://www.sarna.net...nel_Gauss_Rifle

[Bombast]

Lebarbu, on 16 January 2017 - 10:29 PM, said:

Anti-Personnel Gauss Rifle

http://www.sarna.net...nel_Gauss_Rifle

3069. My cut-off was 3068 (Start of the Jihad).

[LordNothing]

i voted for light autocannons mostly because there is a need for lighter ballistics to use on smaller mechs (im also going to boat the hell out of em on bigger mechs). i kind of also want racs, and i think it would be a shame not to include both. also no magshot? meh. if possible id have voted for everything really.

implement it if any of these are true:
if it was in any previous mechwarrior or mech commander game.
if it was in living legends or any of the mw4 mektek addons.
if it was in battletech, or on sarna but not in any of the above.

implement all the things.
then add ammo switching.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 January 2017 - 10:38 PM.

[TheArisen]

No Bombast laser Bombast???? Really?

Also the binary laser would be cool too

[Lupis Volk]

For IS i went with.

RAC, PPC, and MRM.

Clams i went with.

MG array, Mirco lasers and Mech mortars.

[Bombast]

TheArisen, on 16 January 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

No Bombast laser Bombast???? Really?

Also the binary laser would be cool too

I know... It saddens me too. But I wanted to stick to 'Retail' parts, and neither the Binary Laser nor the Bombast Laser fit that bill.

I think, if I do an equipment/construction material poll (I'd like to), I'll include Experimental Weapons as a category.

[Black Ivan]

I'm in for Clan Heavy Lasers, but I see a problem with the already too long burn time of Clan ER Lasers, so this weapons would be DOA

[Bombast]

Black Ivan, on 16 January 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

I'm in for Clan Heavy Lasers, but I see a problem with the already too long burn time of Clan ER Lasers, so this weapons would be DOA

Not necessarily.

Maybe others would disagree with me, but in my head, this is how I see Heavy Lasers in MWO - High damage, low to medium burn time lasers with absurd heat values that precludes them from being boated, in any way, but allows Clan mechs with only a handful of Energy hard points to squeeze something meaningful out of them.

Or, since they share the IS standard laser range profile, maybe they can just be Clan standard lasers, with IS-ish burn times and worse heat (And maybe a lot more heat for the Heavy Large, since it saves a ton in this comparison).

[FupDup]

Bombast, on 16 January 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

Not necessarily.

Maybe others would disagree with me, but in my head, this is how I see Heavy Lasers in MWO - High damage, low to medium burn time lasers with absurd heat values that precludes them from being boated, in any way, but allows Clan mechs with only a handful of Energy hard points to squeeze something meaningful out of them.

Or, since they share the IS standard laser range profile, maybe they can just be Clan standard lasers, with IS-ish burn times and worse heat (And maybe a lot more heat for the Heavy Large, since it saves a ton in this comparison).

Depends on how PGI interprets the Heavy beamers.

For Pulse Lasers, their -2 to-hit modifier translates to shorter beam duration in MWO. Since Heavy Lasers have a +1 to-hit penalty, PGI could very easily take that as having a longer duration than Standard or ER Lasers.

It wouldn't really fit their role of having the same range as IS STD Lasers, though.

Since the Heavy Large Laser has 18 heat by default, I really don't think you need to give it even more than that.

[stealthraccoon]

Snub nose PPC please! And MRM's - which will lead to the UM-68 and UM-80 (ECM trashcan!!!)

Edited by stealthraccoon, 16 January 2017 - 11:25 PM.

[Requiemking]

FupDup, on 16 January 2017 - 11:10 PM, said:

Depends on how PGI interprets the Heavy beamers.

For Pulse Lasers, their -2 to-hit modifier translates to shorter beam duration in MWO. Since Heavy Lasers have a +1 to-hit penalty, PGI could very easily take that as having a longer duration than Standard or ER Lasers.

It wouldn't really fit their role of having the same range as IS STD Lasers, though.

Since the Heavy Large Laser has 18 heat by default, I really don't think you need to give it even more than that.

If I were to implement Heavy Lasers, then they would be balanced against IS Standard Lasers. Same range, same duration. The tradeoff would be heat and boatability vs sheer damage. What I mean by boatability is that, in most cases, Heavy Lasers are one crit larger then the IS Standard laser, thus making them harder to boat. As for HLL, well, simple heat VS damage tradeoff.

Edited by Requiemking, 16 January 2017 - 11:31 PM.

[627]

Where's my Blazer?

[TheArisen]

Bombast, on 16 January 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

I know... It saddens me too. But I wanted to stick to 'Retail' parts, and neither the Binary Laser nor the Bombast Laser fit that bill.

I think, if I do an equipment/construction material poll (I'd like to), I'll include Experimental Weapons as a category.

I don't think rarity should carry much weight considering we have mech variants and even chassis that are supposed to be borderline extinct or completely extinct. Variety should be much more important IMO.

[AngrySpartan]

1. There is a really simple way of making MMLs and ATMs with single ammo type. Depending on range they do different damage, e.g. MMLs: 2dmg/missile at 0-270m and 1dmg/missile at 270+. Not the original idea, was suggested by Segerlack a while ago Here
2. Streak LRMs? As an experimental tech they were introduced at 3057, were they experimental at 3068 as well?

[Karl Streiger]

Bombast, on 16 January 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

Not necessarily.

Maybe others would disagree with me, but in my head, this is how I see Heavy Lasers in MWO - High damage, low to medium burn time lasers with absurd heat values that precludes them from being boated, in any way, but allows Clan mechs with only a handful of Energy hard points to squeeze something meaningful out of them.

Or, since they share the IS standard laser range profile, maybe they can just be Clan standard lasers, with IS-ish burn times and worse heat (And maybe a lot more heat for the Heavy Large, since it saves a ton in this comparison).

thing is -every weapon has some parameters - heat; weight, crits, damage, burn duration, rof what ever.
think of sliders
when you move one slider a bit - all the other sliders do move either.

take for example the cERLarge Laser and turn it into a HeavyLargeLaser
- increase the number of crits
- all values but tonnage are improving slightly
- second move the range down
- heat is reduced, damage increased, cool down reduced, duration reduced.slightly
- now you lock range and move damage
- heat is increased, cooldown increases, duration increases fast
- now we lock damage and modify the duration....
...
...
base value is modified although it has the same tonnage it has more crits

Edited by Karl Streiger, 17 January 2017 - 05:33 AM.

[Snazzy Dragon]

MRMs because tube hell

Heavy/light gauss

Heavy lasers

IS ER lasers

RACs for IS

[Bombast]

627, on 17 January 2017 - 02:06 AM, said:

Where's my Blazer?

I exempted experimental equipment for the purposes of this poll.

AngrySpartan, on 17 January 2017 - 04:54 AM, said:

2. Streak LRMs? As an experimental tech they were introduced at 3057, were they experimental at 3068 as well?

They remain experimental forever (Or at least well past the point we're talking about). Also, mechanically, we already have Streak LRMs. Though, since they're clan only, and weight as much as IS LRM launcher, I suppose they'd just be Clan LRMs with IS firing profiles?

Edited by Bombast, 17 January 2017 - 06:46 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Bombast, on 17 January 2017 - 06:45 AM, said:

I exempted experimental equipment for the purposes of this poll.

ZEU-6Y and MAD-4X don't approve