Its all about looks. If you have only 1 Chassis per role you end up with something like "Tribes".. Everybody looks the same, is easily identified and countered.
If you have lots of Mechs and are free in configuring them you add an element of surprise to each encounter.
0
On Distinguishability Of Chassis
Started by Red squirrel, Nov 23 2012 01:40 AM
23 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,626 posts
Member
Posted 28 November 2012 - 03:25 PM
Rutok, on 24 November 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:
Its all about looks. If you have only 1 Chassis per role you end up with something like "Tribes".. Everybody looks the same, is easily identified and countered.
If you have lots of Mechs and are free in configuring them you add an element of surprise to each encounter.
If you have lots of Mechs and are free in configuring them you add an element of surprise to each encounter.
I dont agree.
As an example It's already a bit surprise wheter I have SRMs or LRMs in my cat.
Edited by Red squirrel, 29 November 2012 - 01:59 PM.
#23
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,626 posts
Member
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:59 PM
Rutok, on 24 November 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:
Its all about looks. If you have only 1 Chassis per role you end up with something like "Tribes".. Everybody looks the same, is easily identified and countered.
If you have lots of Mechs and are free in configuring them you add an element of surprise to each encounter.
If you have lots of Mechs and are free in configuring them you add an element of surprise to each encounter.
I dont agree.
As an example It's already a bit surprise wheter I have SRMs or LRMs in my cat.
#24
-
-
- 1,591 posts
Member
- LocationCalifornia
Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:35 PM
Jacob Dieffenbach, on 23 November 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:
I am a strong advocate for a redo of the hardpoint system with "large" hardpoints that fit everything 2 crits or higher, and regular hardpoints fitting 1-crit systems.
This'd eliminate a lot of redundancy--the K2 would no longer be able to fit Gauss Rifles--and strengthen the relationship between chassis and role on the battlefield (the Jenner would not be seen fitting large lasers or PPCs, because that's not its role and it doesn't have hardpoints for that).
I don't know if that'd be possible now that the game's in open beta and people have spent money on chassis. But I do feel it's a better solution than what we have for some of these long-term problems.
This'd eliminate a lot of redundancy--the K2 would no longer be able to fit Gauss Rifles--and strengthen the relationship between chassis and role on the battlefield (the Jenner would not be seen fitting large lasers or PPCs, because that's not its role and it doesn't have hardpoints for that).
I don't know if that'd be possible now that the game's in open beta and people have spent money on chassis. But I do feel it's a better solution than what we have for some of these long-term problems.
Agreed, swapping out a MG for a Gauss rifle just because it's a balistic hard point? Really? You think that little mount for a half ton machine gun is going to hold 15 ton Gauss rifle? I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure there would be a LOT of iss;ues with that change.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
