Jump to content

List Of New Weapons?

Balance Gameplay Loadout

27 replies to this topic

#1 TheArisen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,040 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:23 AM

- How long until we find out what the new toys are?
- Will we get every new weapon available by 3067 or 3062?
- Will experimental weapons like blazers, binary lasers, thunder lrms, etc, get forgotten?
- Will we get new defensive equipment?

#2 Alan Davion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:26 AM

Apparently Russ tweeted that an actual announcement will be coming "Soon", so you can probably expect it sometime in 30-90 days.

After Open Beta.

#3 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:12 AM

View PostAlan Davion, on 03 March 2017 - 07:26 AM, said:

Apparently Russ tweeted that an actual announcement will be coming "Soon", so you can probably expect it sometime in 30-90 days.

After Open Beta.


Yep he made it sound like thier will be a town hall for it.

#4 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:18 AM

I will be very interested to hear what they are going to let in, as well as how they will handle some IS version of Clan Tech.... there are also a few weapons that require being able to crit split to not invalidate lore builds, LB-20X arm mounts I'm looking at you....

#5 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:29 AM

I know there are the following weapons going in:

Small Club (damage 50: range 4m)
Medium Club( damage 70: range 8m)
Large Club (Damage 100: range 12m)
Zito's Mom's "Club" (Damage 1000: Range 1200m: AOE 120M)

#6 1Grimbane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,123 posts
  • Locationsafe. . . . . you'll never get me in my hidey hole.

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:02 AM

MRMs PLEASE, let the salt flow

#7 Alan Davion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:14 AM

View PostMetus regem, on 03 March 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

there are also a few weapons that require being able to crit split to not invalidate lore builds, LB-20X arm mounts I'm looking at you....


There's no way in hell that PGI will get that right. You can bet real money they'll be reducing the crit size on weapons that would require crit splitting to get them to fit somewhere.

#8 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:28 AM

View PostAlan Davion, on 03 March 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:


There's no way in hell that PGI will get that right. You can bet real money they'll be reducing the crit size on weapons that would require crit splitting to get them to fit somewhere.



And I'm totally okay with it!

The IS LB's are hot garbage if they ever make it over here, if they use TT Stats...

The LB-2 takes up an additional 300% crit space over the normal AC/2... (4 vs 1)
The LB-5 takes up an additional 25% crit space over the normal AC/5.... (5 vs 4)
The LB-20 takes up an additional 10% crit space over the normal AC/20 (11 vs 10)


All three of those LB's weight just as much as their normal AC counter parts... and only the LB-20 is cooler than the normal AC/20.... (6 vs 7)

For MWO, I would suggest that the LB-2&5 both take up the same crit space, with the 20 needing 9 crit spaces, other wise they are going to be just overly punished with how MWO handles LB-AC/'s....

#9 Jackal Noble

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,863 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:47 AM

Townhall : " Alright what can we implement with weapons that will appease the masses, but at the same time requires the least amount of effort."

RAC5s-UAC5 cooldown halved and with a 15% chance of jamming and 10° cone of fire - BOOM

-MRM- 450-600 meter max range - high spread after 360m, high heat, high weight.

ER Medium laser - 340 meter optimum range, 580 max, 6-7 dmg, 1.1 second cooldown, 5 heat.

Edited by JackalBeast, 03 March 2017 - 09:48 AM.


#10 TheArisen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,040 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 03 March 2017 - 11:18 AM

View PostMetus regem, on 03 March 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:



And I'm totally okay with it!

The IS LB's are hot garbage if they ever make it over here, if they use TT Stats...

The LB-2 takes up an additional 300% crit space over the normal AC/2... (4 vs 1)
The LB-5 takes up an additional 25% crit space over the normal AC/5.... (5 vs 4)
The LB-20 takes up an additional 10% crit space over the normal AC/20 (11 vs 10)


All three of those LB's weight just as much as their normal AC counter parts... and only the LB-20 is cooler than the normal AC/20.... (6 vs 7)

For MWO, I would suggest that the LB-2&5 both take up the same crit space, with the 20 needing 9 crit spaces, other wise they are going to be just overly punished with how MWO handles LB-AC/'s....


This. Mwo happens in real time, not turns like TT. Pgi will have to make choices. Some weapons need buffs and some need nerfs, etc.

#11 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 03 March 2017 - 11:24 AM

View PostTheArisen, on 03 March 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

This. Mwo happens in real time, not turns like TT. Pgi will have to make choices. Some weapons need buffs and some need nerfs, etc.



Not to mention that unlike TT, LB's in MWO cannot fire solid shot, so that is something else that needs to be considered when making them... in TT the ability for them to use solid shot or cluster shot warranted the size increases... as the LB-10 out right replaced the AC/10 on all mechs.

#12 1Grimbane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,123 posts
  • Locationsafe. . . . . you'll never get me in my hidey hole.

Posted 03 March 2017 - 03:14 PM

Mrm high heat huh? i am ok with that if they do em right and allow dumbfire and not lock only like streaks. it will be interesting to see how they work it.

Posted Image

#13 TheArisen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,040 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 03 March 2017 - 03:24 PM

View Post1Grimbane, on 03 March 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

Mrm high heat huh? i am ok with that if they do em right and allow dumbfire and not lock only like streaks. it will be interesting to see how they work it.

Posted Image


I have a feeling Mrms will either be op or fairly useless compared to other weapons.

#14 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 03 March 2017 - 03:28 PM

View PostTheArisen, on 03 March 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

I have a feeling Mrms will either be op or fairly useless compared to other weapons.


Yea... they are either going to totally replace SRM's or be totally useless... Not a lot of middle ground on them.... Only saving grace will be no guidance system for them.... Provided they don't add the Apollo FCS, if that gets added SRM/s are so screwed.

#15 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 3,242 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 03:56 PM

I would guess that the the Apollo FCS would reduce spread similar to Artemis.

As for list of possible weapons...there are a lot of new options, not including special ammo or targeting systems.
Spoiler


#16 AnTi90d

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,229 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • Locationhttps://voat.co/

Posted 03 March 2017 - 04:07 PM

I think they should make MRMs act like LBX shots.. high spread and all missiles in one pop.

Add in Clan LRM damage scaling so that they don't replace SRMs for up close and personal fights.

Oh, and they should also have their own weapon model so that MRMs look like the gross tumors that they are in TT.



Posted Image



#17 Lanzman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 313 posts
  • LocationVirginia, USA

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:22 PM

View PostTheArisen, on 03 March 2017 - 07:23 AM, said:

- How long until we find out what the new toys are?
- Will we get every new weapon available by 3067 or 3062?
- Will experimental weapons like blazers, binary lasers, thunder lrms, etc, get forgotten?
- Will we get new defensive equipment?

Picking up on one thing here, swarm and thunder LRMs should already be in the game, as they were available to the Inner Sphere in 3050. Swarms would be cool, but thunders? Man, I'd love to be able to lay a minefield in the saddle on Crimson Strait, or on the center hill on Canyon Network.

#18 AnTi90d

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,229 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • Locationhttps://voat.co/

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:35 PM

I don't think we'd see thunders. That would require PGI to code a completely new mechanic for the game.

It would be cool if PGI added swarms and made the animation like the old LRM spirals and then pop open with the tiny missiles.. but swarms would probably be too graphically intensive for MWO.

Inferno LRMs and SRMs would be awesome. (Instead of damage, they add 2 heat to an enemy for each missile that hits.) They'd have to code some kind of heat limit like flamers, though.

Silver Bullet Gauss is 3051. It's basically a high speed LBX15. This should really be added. It would be a fun weapon for standard or LFE engine IS mechs.

http://www.sarna.net...let_Gauss_Rifle


People have asked for Light Gauss, an 8 damage goose waffle that takes up 5 slots, but I think PGI would limit it to two at a time like regular waffles.

Snub Nose and Heavy PPCs are 3067 and I think that's a bit out of our reach for the timeline jump.

#19 Zergling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 2,439 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 10:13 PM

I expect the following weapons, as they aren't too complicated to implement (don't require ammo swapping for example):

Inner Sphere weapons:
ER Medium Laser
ER Small Laser
LBX2
LBX5
LBX20
UAC2
UAC10
UAC20
Streak SRM4
Streak SRM6
MRM10
MRM20
MRM30
MRM40
Light Gauss
Heavy Gauss
Light PPC
Heavy PPC
Light Machinegun
Heavy Machinegun


And for Clans:
Heavy Small Laser
Heavy Medium Laser
Heavy Large Laser
ER Small Pulse Laser
ER Medium Pulse Laser
ER Large Pulse Laser
Hyper Assault Gauss 20
Hyper Assault Gauss 30
Hyper Assault Gauss 40
Light Machinegun
Heavy Machinegun


MRMs would basically be longer ranged SRMs, but due to spread I expect the larger launchers would have awful damage/weight efficiency at medium range.
The MRM10 would basically be a replacement for SRM6 racks; bit less damage, but much better range.
The larger MRM launchers would be there to give mechs with few missile hardpoints a strong close range punch, comparable to a SRM vomit build but without requiring so many hardpoints. Eg, it'd only take 2 missile hardpoints for 60 or 80 MRMs, giving comparable damage output to five or six SRM6s.

Hyper Assault Gauss are simple enough; they are just LBX Gauss.

Heavy Lasers would be balanced against other clan lasers by having longer beam duration; I wouldn't be surprised if they hit 1.8 or even 2.0 second durations.

ER Pulse Lasers I'm not sure of; would they actually offer anything useful? They'd be simple enough to add, but would there be any point?

I don't know what Clan missile weapons can be added; ATMs would be complicated to implement, as they'd either require ammo swapping or multiple range/damage increments (and they'd be difficult to balance versus both LRMs and SRMs on top of that), and Streak LRMs would be kinda pointless (can't be fired indirectly, much worse damage/weight efficiency than regular LRMs).



View PostAnTi90d, on 03 March 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:

Snub Nose and Heavy PPCs are 3067 and I think that's a bit out of our reach for the timeline jump.


Timeline jump is to 3068.

Edited by Zergling, 03 March 2017 - 10:17 PM.


#20 Hit the Deck

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • LocationIndonesia

Posted 03 March 2017 - 10:28 PM

View PostMetus regem, on 03 March 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

I will be very interested to hear what they are going to let in, as well as how they will handle some IS version of Clan Tech.... there are also a few weapons that require being able to crit split to not invalidate lore builds, LB-20X arm mounts I'm looking at you....

View PostAlan Davion, on 03 March 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:


There's no way in hell that PGI will get that right. You can bet real money they'll be reducing the crit size on weapons that would require crit splitting to get them to fit somewhere.

They will remove the Bushwacker's Upper Arm Actuator so the LB-X-20 can fit there. Just like what they did with the King Crab by removing its Lower Arm Actuator.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users