This isn't exactly a suggestion, more like a discussion of what if they couldn't use them. I know the versatility of heavy tanks goes down, but that gives an opportunity for them to be more role specific. It would also partially help to balance 2 slot weapons because you no longer have to worry about what if someone could use 2 of them. So you could further increase whatever role you'd want to give medium tanks. Another benefit is that it would passively increase the research time for useful heavy tanks because heavy tanks with 1 slot weapons tend to be laughable. Again though, versatility goes down and people like spamming loads of weapons from a heavy tank. People have issues about commanders getting mediums with no weapons, they might really rage when commanders end up doing the same for these heavy tanks. It wouldn't be hard to implement this before anyone asks, you'd just make 2 slot weapons heavier and increase medium tanks weight capacity so only they can hold them.
So what if you get heavies before 3-slot weapons? They'd be useless. (Unless you could use 1-slot weapons but not 2-slots, but that'd be confusing).
I've never liked the idea of pushing the 1-slot, 2-slot and 3-slot weapons closer together in utility. I think there's a tremendous amount of valuable intuition when someone sees those slots. It's instantly clear that compatibility is based on color and visual size. There's no confusing numbers, no unending paragraphs to absorb. It's brain-dead simple. In a game that's often incredibly confusing, this is one thing that is pretty clear and done very well.
Haha, that was more of a novelty, but I don't think there's quite as much room to exploit the slot functionality in armors & engines since there's no "tiering" in them. Although it would probably make more sense to people if certain armors used 2-slot icons and others used non-stackable 1-slot icons. Like a lot of people don't "get" that reactive is really tough while something like budget isn't. Fuck, I might just go do that now...
Yep, but I don't see a ton of potential for that. Plate limits already "tier" out all armors by chassis. The intuition offered by that method really outweighs any token strategic complexity that more explicit tiering could offer. Engines are already basically "tiered". Certain advantages of a few engines are more prominent on certain chassis. It's not much and I doubt it was intentional, but I honestly don't care enough to really go wild. Engines seem to boring in their current implementation. I'd rather leave em more-or-less as-is and let them remain an anchor of familiarity for regulars.
Yep, not much point considering how current empire works. I just like to note it down for future reference and if anyone else wanted to mess with scripts.
I really like the idea of showing absorbant or brittle or whatever as one slot instead of 2. Also for armor and engines, can we just make it so you don't have to tear off an armor to put one on? You can only have one anyways. Saves a few seconds.
There should be a consequence for loading TWO three slot weapons. Right now I can do six layers of compo armor on front, sides, and 3 or 4 on back with dual NF three slot ML's. BE's dual Rails rapes bases and vehicles and five layers of armor on F, Sides, and 3 on rear is way OP. Make it do-able but at a cost of quick death if pushed beyond the front line. Like Arty is quick death due to it's inflexibility. This shit is not rocket science. LOL
There is a penalty for 2 3-slot weapons, it's called versatility. You get locked in only being able to do one thing well, not to mention there is armors capable of hard countering the 3 slot weapons. A cannon and missile is still great. Though now that I think about it, wouldn't something like rails or plasma and triple ml be the best set up for a heavy? I guess it doesn't happen much because of research time, or it just seems weird to have an empty slot for whatever faction. Any case someone should try that out, though maybe not with the double research times now.
I'm surprised we don't see more NF heavies with dual guided/homing and a bio cannon. You'd have 3 3-slots weapons that are good at burst damage. It oughta be enough damage all at once to kill almost any vehicle barring a heavy.
Whoa, I totally missed you making them lighter, that's only 30 more weight than a standard 3 2-slot weapon loadout. Why though? I thought there was a theme of giving up versatility for increased damage in one specific area. Oh right, that theme of making heavy tanks super strong and super slow. Hmmm.
Haha, well I initially wanted to give heavies a tradeoff opportunity for a rather impressive amount of firepower, but that still didn't end games fast enough. Ihave a hunch that 3 3-slot weapons oughta be pretty rapetastic, but players aren't going to want to give up too much armor for that. So we'll see what happens when 3-slot weapons weigh more like 2-slot weapons. But erm, that actually has been that way for weeks, so erm...
great lets force nf to research 3 slots if they want a cannon to go along their missiles this wouldnt be a complete pain in the ass at all
I haven't played in weeks either, I can only comment from what I remember from patch notes. I'm not exactly liking the idea of giving so much firepower... is the idea to basically make heavy tanks end games within 5 minutes? I suppose that would help the winning team, if they have ref control they can afford the heavy tanks and most of the time teams tend to keep a pretty even research speed, disregarding new/not great commanders. Not that I quite like that idea, I really rather heavy tanks to be something of a side grade to mediums, rather then game enders. It isn't even like heavy tanks are needed to end games, if they are that just says to me it might be a pretty good match and decently balanced team wise. Or people are bad at ending things, an experience I really don't like.
