#1
Posted December 23 2013 - 10:32 AM
#2
Posted December 23 2013 - 11:20 AM
Check out my new short film Prebirth: The Eternal War! Check out my e-peen!
Need to find a mech guide_ Well, look here!
Intel Core i3 2120 @ 3.30 GHz | Corsair XMS3 8GB RAM | eVGA GTX 550Ti 1GB OC | Corsair CX600 PSU
#3
Posted December 23 2013 - 11:57 AM
#4
Posted December 23 2013 - 02:14 PM
#5
Posted December 23 2013 - 09:49 PM
"If at first you do not succeed... reload"
#6
Posted December 24 2013 - 08:05 AM
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.
#7
Posted December 24 2013 - 09:44 AM
Dictatorfish, on December 24 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:
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
#8
Posted December 24 2013 - 10:44 AM
#9
Posted December 24 2013 - 10:50 AM
#10
Posted December 24 2013 - 11:05 AM
ShadowWarg, on December 24 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:
- Vanguard: 11 (99%)
- Rocketeer: 10 (100%)
- Grenadier: 11 (99%)
- Brawler: 9 (101%)
- Berserker: 19 (91%)
- Infiltrator: 20 (90%)
- Reaper: 21 (89%)
- Scout: 19 (91%)
- Technician: 20 (90%)
Default fuel capacities of C-class mechs:
- Vanguard: 78 L
- Rocketeer: 88.5 L
- Grenadier: 109.5 L
- Brawler: 144.5 L
- Berserker: 95.5 L
- Infiltrator: 92 L
- Reaper: 81.5 L
- Scout: 64 L
- Technician: 92 L
#11
Posted December 24 2013 - 11:20 AM
Dictatorfish, on December 24 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:
ShadowWarg, on December 24 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:
- Vanguard: 11 (99%)
- Rocketeer: 10 (100%)
- Grenadier: 11 (99%)
- Brawler: 9 (101%)
- Berserker: 19 (91%)
- Infiltrator: 20 (90%)
- Reaper: 21 (89%)
- Scout: 19 (91%)
- Technician: 20 (90%)
Default fuel capacities of C-class mechs:
- Vanguard: 78 L
- Rocketeer: 88.5 L
- Grenadier: 109.5 L
- Brawler: 144.5 L
- Berserker: 95.5 L
- Infiltrator: 92 L
- Reaper: 81.5 L
- Scout: 64 L
- Technician: 92 L
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.
#12
Posted December 24 2013 - 11:44 AM
(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
"To the untrained eye this chart may indeed appear to demonstrate a steep and sustained downward trend; however, what you're actually seeing is the line being dragged down because of the strengthening gravitational pull of a player base that is actually increasing in density. Rest assured, this is all going completely according to plan."
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Beta
Med Lab →
Website & Forums →
Remember MeStarted by CapAllan , Oct 23 2014 Beta, Community, Forum, Patch and 2 more... |
|
|
||
Colony Hub →
Clan Hall →
bEastsStarted by CapAllan , Oct 13 2014 Announcement, Beta, Clan and 3 more... |
|
|
||
Colony Hub →
Suggestions →
Lava Rig - New Map IdeaStarted by CapAllan , Sep 18 2014 Beta, Forum, Game, Patch, Update |
|
|
||
Colony Hub →
Polls →
Poll Story In-GameStarted by CapAllan , Sep 06 2014 Art, Beta, Community, Event and 6 more... |
|
|
||
Cantina →
Off-Topic →
Mighty No. 9 Beta gameplayStarted by XPloyt , Sep 01 2014 Beta, Game, Introduction, Video |
|
|
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users