Solving the MAX equation

[EVILPIG]

I have always felt that perhaps the biggest mistake with MAXes is that they can duel wield. If MAXes could not duel wield, weaponry for them could probably be balanced better. We'd see less specializing and more diversity.

Thoughts?

*EDIT I am not proposing that MAXes have 1 weapon, but that each arm must have a different class of weapon. AI-AV-AA I see how I didn't sufficiently word it the first time. I phrased it as such because during development the plan for the concept of "Dual Wield" for MAXes was that it was an ability you had to cert into.

[Sardus]

I think I'd rather give more incentive to use two different weapons at once. You always see people using the same two guns. The game actually punishes you for trying to diversify and mix.

[Cromation]

I personally enjoy using two seperate MAX anti infantry weapons on my MAX. Usually one with a large clip and one with a smaller clip so that I am constantly laying down fire. One is reloading and the other is still firing. If I used the same 2 weapons I would have to time when to use my 2nd gun which in the heat of battle I rather just hold down the trigger.

[maradine]

People like to specialize. I don't see that as a fault of the ability to dual-wield. Indeed, single-wielding would yield the opposite of what you ask for, since each MAX can now by definition do only one thing.

[Sardus]

Only if I can sucker punch people with my other fist.

[MaxDamage]

I think I'd rather give more incentive to use two different weapons at once. You always see people using the same two guns. The game actually punishes you for trying to diversify and mix.

I think this is arguable. A pounder and chaingun are pretty viable now. There was a significant buff to pounders in this patch that I am amazed more people haven't cheered/raged over.
A single pounder arm with a chaingun gives you a respectable chance to take down a small squad of infantry and still solid damage for taking down a sunderer.

[Sentrosi]

About a month after release I took about two weeks to play with the MAXes. I thought that the Burster/Chain-gun combination was really worthwhile in defensive situations. But with the recent buff to the Pounder, I'm going to have to rethink that option along with perhaps the new variants.

I liked the diversity of the MAXes. People need to think outside the box sometimes.

[CraazyCanuck]

There would have to be something else added or an existing element buffed to make it worthwhile to use then. With only one weapon capability, you'd either buff the power of the individual weapons to give some sort of incentive or buff defensive/special abilities further. Otherwise not much point in running as one, as the HA would be a better choice.

Edit: Unless ofcourse by dual wield you mean wielding two identical weapons. If they can not be the same or of the same classification then yes diversity would only improve. You may see that happen anyways once the new weapons get pushed through. Nebula and flamethrower perhaps or Rocketlauncher and something else, but as Maradine stated. There will always be those that would rather be really good at one scenario, instead of being ok across multiple scenarios. And with the abundant accessibility of terminals and sundy's most people will simply switch out their loadout to fit the needs of that particular situation.

[EVILPIG]

There would have to be something else added or an existing element buffed to make it worthwhile to use then. With only one weapon capability, you'd either buff the power of the individual weapons to give some sort of incentive or buff defensive/special abilities further. Otherwise not much point in running as one, as the HA would be a better choice.

Edit: Unless ofcourse by dual wield you mean wielding two identical weapons. If they can not be the same or of the same classification then yes diversity would only improve. You may see that happen anyways once the new weapons get pushed through. Nebula and flamethrower perhaps or Rocketlauncher and something else, but as Maradine stated. There will always be those that would rather be really good at one scenario, instead of being ok across multiple scenarios.

I would imagine individual weapons would be buffed, or I mean, balanced.

Also, it would mean not allowing two of the same class of weapon. So, you could have one AI, AV, or AA and another of a different type.

[psijaka]

No; against this idea.

I've experimented by running with Scat cannon + Falcon lately, but this combo just doesn't cut it; the weapons are too dissimilar to be really effective together. Falcon deadly at medium range; Scattercannon at close range. And they have different fire rates.

People should be allowed to specialise if they wish; preventing them from doing so would be a poor way of solving balance problems, and will just put people off MAX.

[EVILPIG]

No; against this idea.

I've experimented by running with Scat cannon + Falcon lately, but this combo just doesn't cut it; the weapons are too dissimilar to be really effective together. Falcon deadly at medium range; Scattercannon at close range. And they have different fire rates.

People should be allowed to specialise if they wish; preventing them from doing so would be a poor way of solving balance problems, and will just put people off MAX.

You didn't catch that the weapons would need to be buffed/rebalanced.

[psijaka]

I did. But I think that this is the wrong way to go about balancing the MAXes.

The biggest imbalance is in the shotguns v machine guns, which are impossible to balance satisfactorily. But there is a blindingly obvious solution - let the TR and VS have a MAX shotgun, and let the NC have a machine gun. Job done.

[DeltaGun]

What does Dual-Wield effect? It just the power of one main gun divided by two.

[AThreatToYou]

I think that MAX weapons are altogether too weak to justify dual-wielding. Having a single weapon that is twice as strong as any single weapon we have now would make it more simple and more fun to play. Granted, TR can keep their two weapons they just have to be the same for every loadout.

Twice as accurate, increased damage, zoom optics, larger clip sizes, etc.

Dual-wielding also effects MAX optics' options. I cannot realistically fathom why MAX units do not have a zoom function, aside from the obvious (and stupid) fact that they are either a) short range, or b) anti-air. Until recently, that is. Now MAX units have a longer-range option but still no zoom optics. This is just plain stupid.

[Ghoest9]

Robotic heavy armor should have guns on both arms.

This is kind of standard in sci-fi. Im sure there are exceptions but they are exceptions.

[Sledgecrushr]

I love the idea of single weapon maxes. In conjunction with dual wield maxes. I think this would give the max class a lot more variation in how they look, but not necessarily how they operate.

[Whiteagle]

Robotic heavy armor should have guns on both arms.

This is kind of standard in sci-fi. Im sure there are exceptions but they are exceptions.
Unless of course it's a single Aircraft grade weapon, you need two hands for a MAX portable Rotary after all...

[Sledgecrushr]

Bad link

[Lonehunter]

I really don't think dual wielding is an issue, because right now almost NOBODY uses 2 different weapons. I've seen it happen, and laughed a plenty, because they think they can fill 2 different roles but they're really just gimping themselves to each role.

My point being, since everyone uses the same weapons on both arms anyway, a single arm only would be a pointless switch. They'd just up the damage/rate of fire etc. to match the output of the dual wielding max. If they don't up that stuff to compensate, then why not just nerf the damage of the current guns instead of designing ones for one arm?

and am I the only one that thinks this quote is contradicting?

We'd see less specializing and more diversity.

Aren't they synonymous?

[AThreatToYou]

Robotic heavy armor should have guns on both arms.

This is kind of standard in sci-fi. Im sure there are exceptions but they are exceptions.

Come to think of it, that makes me think that MAX units should work like Battle Armor from BattleTech.

For example, the Elemental Battle Armor has an antipersonnel weapon mount on one arm (in addition to a claw), and on their other arm they have a Small Laser (this being a battlemech style weapon, it is really a half-ton laser... not 'small' small--the laser is anti-vehicle). They also have two missile mounts, with one reload each, but we'll forgo this.

What I am trying to say is, why can't MAXs just mount an SMG or something on one arm? It'd have much less recoil so it would be more accurate provided a laser sight. It'd definitely be more accurate than the MAX weapons we have now/NC would freaking love it.

Then, on the other arm, they could have a more powerful and more specialized weapon. Even if its an anti-infantry weapon the MAX could rely on the SMG while reloading.

Think of an NC MAX with an AF-4 Cyclone+laser sight attached to one arm, and a Falcon with a 20-round clip/decreased gravity/increased ROF on the other arm. Also think of a TR MAX with a Hailstorm on one arm and a 40-round uberpounder on the other arm. And VS, too.

[Vashyo]

I'm perfectly happy with my Falcon + Scatter combo. First a rocket in the gut, then finish with the shottie, repeat. I can even snipe some snipers with the falcon sometimes if they're clueless enough, lol. It's good cause they usually don't bother responding for obvious reasons. :P

[Whiteagle]

I'm perfectly happy with my Falcon + Scatter combo. First a rocket in the gut, then finish with the shottie, repeat. I can even snipe some snipers with the falcon sometimes if they're clueless enough, lol. It's good cause they usually don't bother responding for obvious reasons. :P
Yeah, it's less that we don't have reason to wield two different weapons and more that we just don't have a whole lot of useful combinations...

[moosepoop]

the pounder now does better damage against vehicles but is now much harder to kill infantry, because the splash damage is almost zero.

right now the fracture is basically pounder without the projectile drop. i think the pounder really needs its aoe damage back to make it at least distinct from the new av weapon.

[Mustakrakish]

Rather than forcing people to choose different weapons for each arm, there ought to be a distinct advantage to picking two different weapons as opposed to doubling up. That being said, the fact that all MAX weapons are pretty niche provides an obvious advantage to picking two different weapons -- you're able to handle a wider variety of situations without having to re-arm at a terminal.

NC MAXs can, for instance, roll Slug Mattock for mid-range and Hacksaw for CQC. Now that faction-specific AV weapons have been added, Raven/Falcon could be a viable combo as well; Falcon for closer targets where you're almost guaranteed to hit, and the Raven for a better chance to hit distant targets.

Mixing up weapon types isn't a bad idea either. Maybe you want a Burster to discourage ESFs from getting too close to your squad and a Scattergun to defend a capture point.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that simply placing arbitrary restrictions on aspects of the game is far less likely to offer richer gameplay than creating incentives for specific behaviors.

[Koadster]

I think I'd rather give more incentive to use two different weapons at once. You always see people using the same two guns. The game actually punishes you for trying to diversify and mix.

I use the M1 and Mercy so that they compliment their strengths and counter thier weaknesses... With different type.. Whats the point of 1 cycler 1 burster.. You half your AA DPS, your AI DPS while still there (burster can kill inf nicely) its not as effective as 2 cyclers.

1 Burster and 1 pounder. :lol: You just gimped yourself hard.

[Whiteagle]

I use the M1 and Mercy so that they compliment their strengths and counter thier weaknesses... With different type.. Whats the point of 1 cycler 1 burster.. You half your AA DPS, your AI DPS while still there (burster can kill inf nicely) its not as effective as 2 cyclers.

1 Burster and 1 pounder. :lol: You just gimped yourself hard.
Well this is why I'd get a Fracture for my LEFT arm first; You'd be able to combine it with your Pounder or Burster!

...Not as effective as double Fracture I know, but at least it can be used with both.

[Fenrys]

With the recent buff to default AV MAX weapons, the stock AI/AV MAX is a credible threat to both infantry and other MAX. I suspect the new found explosive power of AV MAX's is a large part of the reason they doubled the protection value of MAX Flak Armor.

A stock MAX is less good at killing MAX's than a dual-AV would be, but it maintains a higher threat level against infantry than a pure AV MAX. More testing is needed to be sure, but it seems like an AI/AV now has a clear advantage over an AI/AI in MAX v MAX combat.

[Gatekeeper]

From a game-design standpoint, MAXs with two independent weapons was always a bust. There's simply no way to make a dual-role MAX really useful, when you could just take two of one type of gun and immediately be twice as good at that role.

OTOH it works really well as a way of gimping starter MAXs and selling extra weapons in the cash shop... ;)

As for how they can fix this (assuming they even want to) I can really only suggest that they make two weapons of the same type, firing together, less than twice as effective as a single gun. To do this they could either apply a nerf to the MAX when it's firing both guns together, or a buff when it's firing just one.

You could potentially combine the recoil of both guns when firing together, but TBH it's probably better to apply some kind of nice, obvious buff when single-firing instead - so players know there's a benefit to doing so. Maybe a RoF buff when just firing one gun?

[psijaka]

^ the benefit of "single firing" with 2 different weapon types is already there; you are much more versatile, but somewhat weaker against a particular target (but not 50% weaker if you are fighting infantry; the AA and AV weapons do hurt!).

Whereas if you specialise by for example running dual AV, you are stronger against armour but weaker against infantry, especially during CQC.

It's a trade off, in other words, and no restrictions are needed. Why reduce choice and diversity?

[Gatekeeper]

The problem with that theory, as discussed earlier, is that some weapon combinations are effective when used together - and some aren't. And while AA or AV weapons can be used with varying degrees of effectiveness against infantry, AI weapons are useless (or nearly useless) against ground vehicles and aircraft. And if you want an AA/AV mix, what do you do then?

Basically the current system isn't designed with choice and diversity in mind at all, some unusual combinations are viable under certain conditions - but for the most part dual-wielding AA, AV or AI is optimal.

If you want to get the most out of the theoretical versatility offered by two separate weapons, you need to buff weapons used singly - honestly I don't see how this reduces choice and diversity in the slightest. It's not as if dual-wielding would be useless, just less totally dominant.

Ideally you'd end up with a situation where MAXs that use mixed weapons would be about 75% as effective against a given target category as a specialist dual-wielding MAX, but able to handle two different categories. I don't think that's true, currently.