8 replies to this topic

[TELEFORCE]

I'm a little surprised that PGI is making CASE weightless since that means that they can reduce weight or slot requirements for all kinds of weapons and equipment if they wanted to. We're diverging from canon more now, so why not continue?

I propose reducing the slot requirements for Inner Sphere LBX-AC/20s and heavy Gauss rifles in lieu of a proper split-crit implementation for big weapons. This would allow these big guns to be used in torsos with light fusion engines, making 'mechs like the Atlas AS7-S2 possible.

If we want to get really crazy, we can also slightly reduce the slot requirement of AC/20s since they could've also had their critical slots split between arms and torsos. I'd be all for that at this point.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Why? CASE was previously useless and that is why it has been changed, the LBX/20 and HGR are still perfectly fine as they are and in fact you can look at HGR taking up so many slots as being part of the balance

[TELEFORCE]

Monke-, on 02 April 2021 - 12:32 PM, said:

Why? CASE was previously useless and that is why it has been changed, the LBX/20 and HGR are still perfectly fine as they are and in fact you can look at HGR taking up so many slots as being part of the balance

Because canon designs utilize both light fusion engines and HGR and LBX20s in the side torsos, that's why.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

TELEFORCE, on 02 April 2021 - 12:37 PM, said:

Because canon designs utilize both light fusion engines and HGR and LBX20s in the side torsos, that's why.

Okay and whats your point? This isn't canon, nor is it tabletop.

[Heavy Money]

Monke-, on 02 April 2021 - 12:32 PM, said:

Why? CASE was previously useless and that is why it has been changed, the LBX/20 and HGR are still perfectly fine as they are and in fact you can look at HGR taking up so many slots as being part of the balance

The IS LB20X is way under utilized. Reducing its slots would make it easier to run, and also possible to put in the arms of some mechs, like an AC20. Its an unnecessarily scarce weapon seeing as it isn't really any better than AC20's anyhow, except for ghost heat amount. But that should just be removed from AC20's imo (clan AC20's are getting it removed.)

This change should happen so that people can actually run the damn thing.

Edited by Heavy Money, 02 April 2021 - 01:39 PM.

[Antares102]

Heavy Money, on 02 April 2021 - 12:45 PM, said:

The IS LB20X is way under utilized. Reducing its slots would make it easier to run, and also possible to put in the arms of some mechs, like an AC20. Its an unnecessarily scare weapon seeing as it isn't really any better than AC20's anyhow, except for ghost heat amount. But that should just be removed from AC20's imo (clan AC20's are getting it removed.)

This change should happen so that people can actually run the damn thing.

Cauldron guys already reduced the slots for the IS LB-2X from 4 to 3, if we change any other equipment slots we will invoke the wrath of the the lore-nerds. You dont want to do that.
(BTW I agree reducing the IS LB-20X slots from 11 to 10.... AHHHHH.... LORE-NERDS ALL OVER ME!!!!!)

Edited by Antares102, 02 April 2021 - 01:02 PM.

[D A T A]

we don't give a **** of what canon says

[Sjorpha]

IS LB20 I can definitely see a size reduction making sense.

But I think needing a standard engine for Heavy Gauss is a good limitation for it so we don't have to nerf it in other ways, i think there is a risk it gets too good if you could use LFE to make viable dual Hgauss on heavies.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

well..
-reducing IS-case to 0tons isn't canon.
-reducing (IS)LB20x-critslots isn't canon, either.

and we could still have both, cause both make sense. the is-lb20 is something you can run on a select few mechs, and even fewer (to the point of actually very few) good builds.

I have no part in this, but just saying: it wouldn't hurt to see more mechs run it. if you're already kicking canon in the nuts, you might as well make it so more people, mechs and weapons benefit from it.*


*speaking strictly from a design-perspective, balance is ofc sth different and should ultimately trump design.
still, it's possible to have both.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 02 April 2021 - 01:50 PM.