Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 0:50:10 GMT -5
Aphid-gain a little more altitude when needed
Pinata-reload in 10sec, maybe max of 12
Pin-6 rockets
Spiral-reload in 10sec, also Spiral MK2 -6 missiles
Tulus=reload in 12sec, 15 max
Zeus-do some actual damage
midrange plasma weapon
Trident-6 rockets
treb-fire every 4-20 sec, faster charge
Hydra-more punch
bring back swarm
Bring pulse weapon in
bring Treb series in
Being prolot in
Develop larger guided missiles - limit 2 per bot, and maybe 4 per hangar
bring in repeating gun larger than molot or punisher, but with a muchslower fire rate than molot. medium, and mid range
Bot thoughts to come
|
|
|
Post by sochilli (Saltesers) on Mar 1, 2017 1:00:02 GMT -5
Mini rant: can people stop saying prolot? There are multiple ways to skin a cat, but that's NOT ONE OF THEM.
- Protolot: Prototype Molot - Heavy Molot: Molot that fits on a heavy hardpoint - Prolot: NO
</rant>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 1:55:23 GMT -5
Are you finished? Just for that you can't have a prolot on yer Cossack!
|
|
|
Post by notyetnotsosoon on Mar 1, 2017 2:46:26 GMT -5
OP's list is going to quicken the dynamics of an already fast-paced game. In battle, 10 minutes isn't that short amount of time hence the time delays for weapons reloading makes up for that.
Besides, you're asking for more firepower that favors head-on approaches instead of exercising proper tactics that comes with patience.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Mar 1, 2017 2:49:34 GMT -5
Summary of what's wrong with the game: "what I want to see in the weapons: do more damage with everything and anything now!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 4:31:08 GMT -5
I just wanna blow crap up. Games to me are to just blow off steam. Shoot and kill. I'm more of a FPS fan. Do love mechs though. Miss old MechWarrior2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 4:34:14 GMT -5
Besides, you're asking for more firepower that favors head-on approaches instead of exercising proper tactics that comes with patience. CQC/CQB requires exercising many things
|
|
|
Post by notyetnotsosoon on Mar 1, 2017 4:49:12 GMT -5
Besides, you're asking for more firepower that favors head-on approaches instead of exercising proper tactics that comes with patience. CQC/CQB requires exercising many things Sure, and I can execute close quarters currently too. Point?
|
|
|
Post by CΛΜΡΞΓ™ on Mar 1, 2017 4:54:41 GMT -5
CQC/CQB requires exercising many things Sure, and I can execute close quarters currently too. Point? you said instead of utilising "proper tactics", and he took your implication that CQC fights do not require tactical play (when in fact they are generally the most tactical fights in the game, as you have little time to scan your surroundings when engaged in a battle where massive amounts of damage can be incurred if you make the wrong move.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 4:58:01 GMT -5
Point made for me^
|
|
|
Post by notyetnotsosoon on Mar 1, 2017 5:06:23 GMT -5
Sure, and I can execute close quarters currently too. Point? you said instead of utilising "proper tactics", and he took your implication that CQC fights do not require tactical play (when in fact they are generally the most tactical fights in the game, as you have little time to scan your surroundings when engaged in a battle where massive amounts of damage can be incurred if you make the wrong move.) Keyword: Implication. I never said it doesn't require tactics, I said "favor" one over another. As to your 2nd point: Not entirely true. Just because you have more time to scan your surroundings doesn't mean you'll have an easier time. The overarching strategy in winning the game is much more nuanced (e.g. biding; flanking; fighting retreat, fire support) in contrast to jumping head on into battle with hopes of dealing the most damage. Besides, from his previous comments, you can see where he's inclination stems from: MechWarrior. If he truly enjoys that, no one's stopping him from sticking to MW.
|
|
|
Post by CΛΜΡΞΓ™ on Mar 1, 2017 5:23:01 GMT -5
Okay notyetnotsosoon, lets be honest here, you didn't REALLY make an implication, I just used the wrong wording. What you really said is INSTEAD OF exercising REAL TACTICS like patience. There are no battles where people charge guns blazin' in high level knife fights, only knifers learning how to use their bots effectively fight like that. Anyway, I can see what you are getting at, you don't want close ranged weapons to be buffed to anything more than what they are currently, which is fine. But really most of the top tier players in this game live and breathe knife fighting. Sure midrange and long range both have their roles in this game, but the knifers get the beacons, and the beacons win the game. The strategy really doesn't extend that much further .
|
|
|
Post by notyetnotsosoon on Mar 1, 2017 5:38:42 GMT -5
^Except my interpretation of tactics encompasses CQ knife-fighting/fighting withdrawal/lull biding, all of which acting in unison requires patience. But instead, you're strawman-ing my position by saying I'm dismissing the fact that it takes a bit of thinking for CQC. Sure, I'll concede that it may have been my fault, perhaps attributed to the way I phrased, you took it differently as opposed to my original intent.
Heading back to topic, I'd beg to differ. To me, what makes the game successful is its balance since not everyone can favor knife-fighting. By that stance you posited, why not simply run a full hangar of brawlers? Hence the option to run mixed hangars which includes: beacon cappers; brawlers; mid-range; long-range etc. I'm skewed toward knife-fighting too (if that matters) but I think it's definitely better now than with OP's suggestions, which would negate a whole lot of experience for varying players.
|
|
|
Post by CΛΜΡΞΓ™ on Mar 1, 2017 5:56:48 GMT -5
^Except my interpretation of tactics encompasses CQ knife-fighting/fighting withdrawal/lull biding, all of which acting in unison requires patience. But instead, you're strawman-ing my position by saying I'm dismissing the fact that it takes a bit of thinking for CQC. Sure, I'll concede that it may have been my fault, perhaps attributed to the way I phrased, you took it differently as opposed to my original intent. Heading back to topic, I'd beg to differ. To me, what makes the game successful is its balance since not everyone can favor knife-fighting. By that stance you posited, why not simply run a full hangar of brawlers? Hence the option to run mixed hangars which includes: beacon cappers; brawlers; mid-range; long-range etc. I'm skewed toward knife-fighting too (if that matters) but I think it's definitely better now than with OP's suggestions, which would negate a whole lot of experience for varying players. a hangar full of brawlers actually works . If you can rely on your teammates to provide at least some midrange support, that is, however as a player that plays the majority of his matches solo or with most of my team left up to the matchmaker to decide, I tend to not take my chances. while this game does have balance in the fact that all roles CAN be viable (as the map rotation allows this to be), most maps in this game do not favour long ranged bots, and some do not favour midranged bots with low mobility. ALL maps however have a large role for brawlers. Dedicated beacon cappers are a different story, as while they work quite effectively against an unorganised team (which you will face often when playing solo or in a small group), they do not work well against skilled groups/teams, which all in all, leads me to believe that the game is already in a knife fighter dominated state as is. I'm not saying that I agree with the changes OP has suggested, Just that as the game is currently, it is not as balanced as it could be, but that seems to be how the majority of the community prefers to play the game.
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Mar 1, 2017 6:11:31 GMT -5
Many games I love were killed because developers added more and more features, in the end making the game too complex or too much pay to win. More variety is not automatically good for a game, and every new weapon must be very carefully checked for the balance changes it introduces. Instead of publishing a list of wild ideas, why not focus on what you want to achieve? What's the point of all those suggestions? We already have a basic stone-paper-scissors setup both with physical/energy shields and rocket/plasma weapons surpassing them, combined with weapon ranges (short/mid/long range) and speed. I don't want to have weapons or robots that breaks this principle. I for one would like to see the current midrange meta nerfed and sniping discouraged, and would be like to see a damage nerf to Tridents, Zeus and Trebuchets. Also I would prefer to have all available weapons fill some role, so the devs should find a way to make Zenits, Noricums and Kang Daes viable.
|
|
|
Post by CΛΜΡΞΓ™ on Mar 1, 2017 6:19:16 GMT -5
I for one would like to see the current midrange meta nerfed and sniping discouraged, and would be like to see a damage nerf to Tridents, Zeus and Trebuchets. trebuchets aren't even that powerful when you take into account just how long they take to recharge, and they only really suck when you are supposedly the only member of your team tryingg to win the game, or the trebuchets are a higher level than your bot by 2+ levels. Zeus is good, but necessary to keep the ancile bots from spiralling out of control, and can be easily countered if flanked by a shield bot. Tridents I can totally understand, but no trident bot is OP aside from the Fury, meaning that possibly something needs to be done to the bot rather than this weapon. If anything dial the reload time of tridents back a bit if need be.
|
|
|
Post by K A Z on Mar 1, 2017 6:34:18 GMT -5
I for one would like to see the current midrange meta nerfed and sniping discouraged, and would be like to see a damage nerf to Tridents, Zeus and Trebuchets. Also I would prefer to have all available weapons fill some role, so the devs should find a way to make Zenits, Noricums and Kang Daes viable. I agree with all except the last part - no nerfs please! I would rather suggest some extra terrain features be added on maps to allow more cover and facilitate sneak-up tactics. The problem With MR and snipers is most vivid on SF, where you have waaay more than 600m of open space allowing trebs to fire several full charges on the approaching bot and Tridents to work full time with lots of space for comfy distance management. Similar on Yama just not so extreme. Give it an extra ruined building here and there to make it more difficult for snipers / give chance to other ranges.
|
|
|
Post by CΛΜΡΞΓ™ on Mar 1, 2017 6:40:41 GMT -5
I would rather suggest some extra terrain features be added on maps to allow more cover and facilitate sneak-up tactics. The problem With MR and snipers is most vivid on SF, where you have waaay more than 600m of open space allowing trebs to fire several full charges on the approaching bot and Tridents to work full time with lots of space for comfy distance management. Similar on Yama just not so extreme. Give it an extra ruined building here and there to make it more difficult for snipers / give chance to other ranges. springfield is just a terrible map. On yamantau midrange is only a problem because they know exactly where you are headed (center beacon of course), and they have lots of time to set up shop in known locations. If you simply make terrain to counter snipers and midrangers you are just further restricting the maps they will be actually effective on.
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Mar 1, 2017 6:44:28 GMT -5
Right, with nerf I meant not necessarily damage reduction. Making them less powerful by giving more cover is actually my favorite solution too, especially on Canyon and Springfield. On Yama I always use the wide pillars of the larger bridge as cover, that's not too bad.
|
|
|
Post by notyetnotsosoon on Mar 1, 2017 6:53:14 GMT -5
^Except my interpretation of tactics encompasses CQ knife-fighting/fighting withdrawal/lull biding, all of which acting in unison requires patience. But instead, you're strawman-ing my position by saying I'm dismissing the fact that it takes a bit of thinking for CQC. Sure, I'll concede that it may have been my fault, perhaps attributed to the way I phrased, you took it differently as opposed to my original intent. Heading back to topic, I'd beg to differ. To me, what makes the game successful is its balance since not everyone can favor knife-fighting. By that stance you posited, why not simply run a full hangar of brawlers? Hence the option to run mixed hangars which includes: beacon cappers; brawlers; mid-range; long-range etc. I'm skewed toward knife-fighting too (if that matters) but I think it's definitely better now than with OP's suggestions, which would negate a whole lot of experience for varying players. a hangar full of brawlers actually works . If you can rely on your teammates to provide at least some midrange support, that is, however as a player that plays the majority of his matches solo or with most of my team left up to the matchmaker to decide, I tend to not take my chances. while this game does have balance in the fact that all roles CAN be viable (as the map rotation allows this to be), most maps in this game do not favour long ranged bots, and some do not favour midranged bots with low mobility. ALL maps however have a large role for brawlers. Dedicated beacon cappers are a different story, as while they work quite effectively against an unorganised team (which you will face often when playing solo or in a small group), they do not work well against skilled groups/teams, which all in all, leads me to believe that the game is already in a knife fighter dominated state as is. I'm not saying that I agree with the changes OP has suggested, Just that as the game is currently, it is not as balanced as it could be, but that seems to be how the majority of the community prefers to play the game. Yes but you mentioned still requiring some form of mid-range support. And there was a recent poll on whether to nerf tridents but the consensus was 4/6 maps favors long range sniping. I agree with your statement on "bots w/ low mobility". That's another can of worms for another time however. There's merit in what you're saying about beacon cappers but it's actually common to find a beacon capping bot in most higher-tiered hangars, perhaps I wasn't clear initially and you thought I meant a player with hangar full of beacon cappers. I place emphasis on this strategy as it's always easier to capture & defend a beacon rather than liberate it from Reds. It's all about initiative.
|
|
|
Post by greyhawk on Mar 1, 2017 7:01:44 GMT -5
Dmg slightly increased for punishers(both kind) and less dmg loss on distances over 350 m Develop a heavy punisher , litteraly a mega vulcan thath will stay in pair with thunder
Dmg slightly increased for hydra and spiral
Make zenit and noricum usable , min fire at 200m, cluster that cover 50% less area but with 100% much dmg
Yes i'm not a big fan of energy weapons XD
|
|
|
Post by CΛΜΡΞΓ™ on Mar 1, 2017 7:05:41 GMT -5
There's merit in what you're saying about beacon cappers but it's actually common to find a beacon capping bot in most higher-tiered hangars, perhaps I wasn't clear initially and you thought I meant a player with hangar full of beacon cappers. I place emphasis on this strategy as it's always easier to capture & defend a beacon rather than liberate it from Reds. It's all about initiative. yeah, higher tier players do run cappers, but they are generally in the form of power runners such as the galahad or rhino (though I haven't seen many Rhinos around the place due to the large influx of Griffins in high level play). Stalkers are seen, gareths a little less than stalkers and thats about it. Stalkers are good for capping unattended beacons and taking the long way round, gareths are good at harassing bots from the side (when they they are able to avoid getting mercilessly pelted by midrange missiles). Killing a beacon capper aint no hard task, and if you don't kill them, well they are more likely than not going to bail very soon after they have capped what they could anyway. Leaving them a bot short gives your team a bot to work with / sacrifice if need be to take control of the lost beacon.
|
|
|
Post by frunobulax on Mar 1, 2017 7:10:44 GMT -5
trebuchets aren't even that powerful when you take into account just how long they take to recharge, and they only really suck when you are supposedly the only member of your team tryingg to win the game, or the trebuchets are a higher level than your bot by 2+ levels. Zeus is good, but necessary to keep the ancile bots from spiralling out of control, and can be easily countered if flanked by a shield bot. Tridents I can totally understand, but no trident bot is OP aside from the Fury, meaning that possibly something needs to be done to the bot rather than this weapon. If anything dial the reload time of tridents back a bit if need be. Did you ever play Canyon against two high-level Treb Furys? I used to think that Trebs are a joke, but recent weeks have changed my opinion there. I still refuse to get some, but I pay much more attention to them. I had many games on Canyon or Springfield where one or two Treb Furys would survive for the whole game and contribute significantly to a win. They are not overpowered (yet), but form a very unique presence on the battlefield that is very hard to get rid of. Trebs have me more worried than Tridents. I carry a Zeus Carnage that I can use very efficiently as counter to Trident Fury, but with Trebs - there is no way to get in range without attracting the attention of several other reds, and the my primary Treb counters are Plasmahad and Taran Ancilot. Plasmahad is vulnerable to any rockets, and Ancilot is too slow and vulnerable to flanking. Plus, if you have to cover 700m just to get in weapon range you will need a minute to get there, subjecting you to several Treb volleys. A level 10 Treb Fury will do 45k damage a pop, give it 3 shots and the Galahad shield is almost down (my Galahad is just being upgraded to level 8, and I face level 10 all the time). And if I slouch towards a Fury, shield up, at least one or two reds will take notice and intercept, and with the shield up I can't even outrun Aphids. Rhino wouldn't do any better here. Now, what else can we do to counter a Treb Fury instead of Plasma britbots? Of course you can counter with your own long range build, Nashorns or Trebs. As for light and medium weapons, you could do a Gekko build, pitting the 508 DPS of a Gekko against 763 DPS of a Treb. But Gekko is just the little brother of the Treb and it costs gold, and a Treb/GekkoNatasha is just a disguised Treb Fury. But that's not a counter, it's just mimicking. Counter, to me, involves something that uses a vulnerability of the other robot. So, which weapons can do more damage while it is possible to get in range of the Treb Fury? The carnage is the only fast robot with two heavy hardpoints that could get in range with Zeus or Tridents, but that's not possible on open maps like Canyon and Springfield because it is squishy. In the end, you will need a robot with a physical shield and at least mid range weapons. The best Treb counter would actually be a Molot Galahad or Hydra/Molot Galahad, but hey, what a waste of a good Galahad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 7:10:51 GMT -5
Bring back Swarm.
Reload time for Trebuchet shortened.
Piñata reload time shortened.
Phalanx style gun, short range 250m or less weapon. Heavy hard point only. Reload time 15 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by CΛΜΡΞΓ™ on Mar 1, 2017 7:20:59 GMT -5
Did you ever play Canyon against two high-level Treb Furys? I used to think that Trebs are a joke, but recent weeks have changed my opinion there. I still refuse to get some, but I pay much more attention to them. I had many games on Canyon or Springfield where one or two Treb Furys would survive for the whole game and contribute significantly to a win. They are not overpowered (yet), but form a very unique presence on the battlefield that is very hard to get rid of. Trebs have me more worried than Tridents. I carry a Zeus Carnage that I can use very efficiently as counter to Trident Fury, but with Trebs - there is no way to get in range without attracting the attention of several other reds, and the my primary Treb counters are Plasmahad and Taran Ancilot. Plasmahad is vulnerable to any rockets, and Ancilot is too slow and vulnerable to flanking. Plus, if you have to cover 700m just to get in weapon range you will need a minute to get there, subjecting you to several Treb volleys. A level 10 Treb Fury will do 45k damage a pop, give it 3 shots and the Galahad shield is almost down (my Galahad is just being upgraded to level 8, and I face level 10 all the time). And if I slouch towards a Fury, shield up, at least one or two reds will take notice and intercept, and with the shield up I can't even outrun Aphids. Now, what else can we do to counter a Treb Fury instead of Plasma britbots? Of course you can counter with your own long range build, Nashorns or Trebs. As for light and medium weapons, you could do a Gekko build, pitting the 508 DPS of a Gekko against 763 DPS of a Treb. But Gekko is just the little brother of the Treb and it costs gold, and a Treb/GekkoNatasha is just a disguised Treb Fury. But that's not a counter, it's just mimicking. Counter, to me, involves something that uses a vulnerability of the other robot. So, which weapons can do more damage while it is possible to get in range of the Treb Fury? The carnage is the only fast robot with two heavy hardpoints that could get in range with Zeus or Tridents, but that's not possible on open maps like Canyon and Springfield, and the Carnage is squishy. The best Treb counter would actually be a Molot Galahad or Hydra/Molot Galahad, but hey, what a waste of a good Galahad. yeah, ive been on the recieving end of trebs before. Alot. I'm usually the first one to actually get going on the larger maps, as i know the large journey ahead aint something to be dully dallying around about, meaning I'm unfortunately also the one to get shot first by snipers, however the only time I have had a problem with them is as i said if they are 2+ levels above your bot. Ask Strayed what he thinks of trebs, or just snipers in general . So what if 3 lvl 10 trebs can take out your lvl 8 Galahads shield, thats gunna take a full minute, and no sniper in their right mind is going to try and take out a galahad, they'd much rather find someone to hide behind that can actually kill you efficiently than waste a full minute taking out just your shield. I have a treb fury, and I only bring it out when my hatred for stalkers and Carnages reaches its absolute peak. Not because its OP, but because the bot is very situational, and is only effective if you know you have a very solid team behind you.
|
|
|
Post by nocluevok on Mar 1, 2017 10:03:56 GMT -5
Twin Aphids for medium hardpoint! Mwwhhaa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 11:34:53 GMT -5
I oppose any idea to buff MRS, create more MR weapons or create more homing missiles.
|
|
|
Post by SATmaster728 on Mar 1, 2017 11:52:27 GMT -5
Are you finished? Just for that you can't have a prolot on yer Cossack! the zues does 14891 per shot at max, at 600 m. for a comparsion, trident does...5524. the zues does a ton of damage for midrange, and has a 5 sec reload time. how do you want more damage?!?!?!
|
|
|
Post by critter667 on Mar 1, 2017 11:58:30 GMT -5
The only change I would like to see right now for weapons is with the Trident.
Please let me fire 1 round from each launcher when I hit the RDB instead of firing all 3 rounds in the magazine. It would make life just a hair better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 12:19:18 GMT -5
I believe the title was things I would "like". Getting way to serious and contentious over a wish list. I used to be "shut up and play" about all the whining and griping. I'm headin back! .......and yes there will still be a bot post.
|
|