11 replies to this topic

[Metal_suit_Madness]

I would loved to have bigger differences between the mech Heavy mech being much slower, and the light mech to be a bit more mobilty and fuel capacity.

[Silverfire]

Slow the C class even more_ Do people even want C classes to exist anymore_

[Hijinks_The_Turtle]

The C-Classes are slow enough buddy.  It's enough of a drawback that it's slow + the fact it has a large hitbox.

[yoshimotosog]

please, please don't say that you're sereous.

[Bazookagofer]

[Dictatorfish]

Actually, I do partially agree with the OP, but the changes should reflect the size differences and not how we would like to play them:
1) C-class mechs to have INCREASED fuel capacity - or A-class mechs to have DECREASED fuel capacity - to reflect size differences (i.e. the opposite of what OP had posted).
2) C-class mechs to have bigger heat sinks (or A-class mechs to have smaller heat sinks) to reflect size differences.

The current mobility is okay as it is but C-class mechs are in my opinion underpowered.  The above suggestions would help to make them more attractive options for players who would be willing to trade the agility of the A-class for increased sustained movement and fire power of larger C-class mechs.  In my head, A-class mechs should be small, light, nimble skirmishers while C-class mechs should be the guys doing the heavy lifting and mashing it out on the front lines.

[ShadowWarg]

Dictatorfish, on December 24 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Actually, I do partially agree with the OP, but the changes should reflect the size differences and not how we would like to play them:
1) C-class mechs to have INCREASED fuel capacity - or A-class mechs to have DECREASED fuel capacity - to reflect size differences (i.e. the opposite of what OP had posted).
2) C-class mechs to have bigger heat sinks (or A-class mechs to have smaller heat sinks) to reflect size differences.

The current mobility is okay as it is but C-class mechs are in my opinion underpowered.  The above suggestions would help to make them more attractive options for players who would be willing to trade the agility of the A-class for increased sustained movement and fire power of larger C-class mechs.  In my head, A-class mechs should be small, light, nimble skirmishers while C-class mechs should be the guys doing the heavy lifting and mashing it out on the front lines.

They already are.

Personally I think the current health on the C mechs is to low to compensate for their slow movement speed. There are other ways to develop a meaningful difference between the weight classes. Examples would be making it so heavier mechs can carry more internals and items. Or lighter mechs are slowed down when loading them with more internals and items more than a heavier class would. Adding ramming so that heavy classes do lots of damage to lighter classes and lighter class end up hurting themselves vs heavier classes. etc

[CounterlogicMan]

Give C-Class more item/internal slots than B-Class/A-Class and give B-Class more item/internal slots than A-class. Makes sense right_ Bigger mech more room for goodies, smaller mech less room.

[Aptest]

I think increasing HP on C class atm will make it completely unrewarding to shoot at them. more item and internal slots sound interesting but don't you think stuff like double turret or he3/deto3 wombo combo can get out of hand_

[Dictatorfish]

ShadowWarg, on December 24 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

They already are.

Currently the default heatsink scores for C-class mechs are as follows:

• Vanguard: 11 (99%)
  
• Rocketeer: 10 (100%)
  
• Grenadier: 11 (99%)
  
• Brawler: 9 (101%)

Meanwhile, A-class mechs:

• Berserker: 19 (91%)
  
• Infiltrator: 20 (90%)
  
• Reaper: 21 (89%)
  
• Scout: 19 (91%)
  
• Technician: 20 (90%)

Why are the A-class mechs packing bigger heatsinks than the significantly more massive C-class mechs_

Default fuel capacities of C-class mechs:

• Vanguard: 78 L
  
• Rocketeer: 88.5 L
  
• Grenadier: 109.5 L
  
• Brawler: 144.5 L

And A-class mechs:

• Berserker: 95.5 L
  
• Infiltrator: 92 L
  
• Reaper: 81.5 L
  
• Scout: 64 L
  
• Technician: 92 L

Apart from the extremes of Brawler and Scout, why are the A-class mechs fitted with similar size fuel tanks as the significantly larger C-class mechs_

[Hijinks_The_Turtle]

Dictatorfish, on December 24 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

ShadowWarg, on December 24 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

They already are.

Currently the default heatsink scores for C-class mechs are as follows:

• Vanguard: 11 (99%)
  
• Rocketeer: 10 (100%)
  
• Grenadier: 11 (99%)
  
• Brawler: 9 (101%)

Meanwhile, A-class mechs:

• Berserker: 19 (91%)
  
• Infiltrator: 20 (90%)
  
• Reaper: 21 (89%)
  
• Scout: 19 (91%)
  
• Technician: 20 (90%)

Why are the A-class mechs packing bigger heatsinks than the significantly more massive C-class mechs_

Default fuel capacities of C-class mechs:

• Vanguard: 78 L
  
• Rocketeer: 88.5 L
  
• Grenadier: 109.5 L
  
• Brawler: 144.5 L

And A-class mechs:

• Berserker: 95.5 L
  
• Infiltrator: 92 L
  
• Reaper: 81.5 L
  
• Scout: 64 L
  
• Technician: 92 L

Apart from the extremes of Brawler and Scout, why are the A-class mechs fitted with similar size fuel tanks as the significantly larger C-class mechs_

I agree, it just doesn't make sense that the A-Classes have more heatsinks and fuel than the C-Classes.  C-Classes should have more room for extra stuff like that.

[Muffintrumpet]

yup, the heat sinks are backwards on the As and Cs
(and even if they were reversed, which they should be, some of the Cs may still arguably deserve a bit more heat dumping capacity)
I've asked many times what the reasoning is behind this but thus far not a dickie bird