Solving the MAX equation - Page 2

Sledgecrushr · 2013-05-02, 06:17 PM

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 · 2013-05-02, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Unless of course it's a single Aircraft grade weapon, you need two hands for a MAX portable Rotary after all...

Sledgecrushr · 2013-05-02, 06:21 PM

Bad link

Lonehunter · 2013-05-02, 07:21 PM

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?

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

We'd see less specializing and more diversity.

Aren't they synonymous?

AThreatToYou · 2013-05-02, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2013-05-02, 08:13 PM

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 · 2013-05-02, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 2013-05-02, 11:58 PM

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 · 2013-05-03, 01:03 AM

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 · 2013-05-03, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

You just gimped yourself hard.

Whiteagle · 2013-05-03, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Koadster

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.

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 · 2013-05-03, 02:34 AM

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 · 2013-05-03, 06:08 AM

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 · 2013-05-03, 07:23 AM

^ 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 · 2013-05-03, 07:48 AM

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.