Jump to content

Combining The Best Parts Of Quirks, Weapon Modules, And Hardpoint Sizes Into Something Workable


10 replies to this topic

#1 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 01 October 2015 - 01:37 PM

So, weapon Quirks are going away, as part of a rebalance pass.

Awesome.

People sometimes talk about hardpoint limits as an alternate way of balancing mechs. It's something I'm a big fan of, but we all know that (as presented so far) it's a no-go, because it limits customization.

What if it didn't?

My proposal:

- Remove the current 'Weapon Module' system completely. Instead of weapon modules that apply throughout the entire 'mech, each weapon hardpoint gets its OWN Weapon Module - one Weapon Module per hardpoint. Instead of accessing these through the 'Modules' tab, you simply right-click on the weapon to pick which Module to apply to it, if any.

- Weapon hardpoints are classified into three types per category: Heavy Energy, Light Energy, Omni Energy, Heavy Ballistic, Light Ballistic, Omni Ballistic, LRM, SRM, and Omni Missile.

- These hardpoint types have no effect on restricting what kinds of weapons you can mount! Load up whatever you want; a heavy ballistic mount can hold a machinegun just as easily as a light ballistic mount can hold an AC20.

- However, mounts are limited in what kinds of Weapon Modules can be mounted into them, like so:

* Light Ballistic - Machinegun +50% Range, AC/2 +33% Range, AC/5 +25% Range, Ultra AC/5 +25% Range, AC/2 -50% Heat, AC/5 -20% Heat, AC/2 +25% Cooldown, AC/5 +33% Cooldown, Ultra AC/5 +25% Cooldown, Ultra AC/5 -33% Jam, AC/2 +25% Velocity, AC/5 +33% Velocity, Ultra AC/5 +33% Velocity, Machine Gun +15% Crit Chance. Each Light Ballistic module costs 50,000 C-bills.

* Heavy Ballistic - (Any) +25% Range, (Any) -20% Heat, (Any) -20% Cooldown, Gauss Rifle -25% Charge Time, (Any) +20% Velocity, AC/20 +50% Velocity, LB-10X +15% Crit Chance. Each Heavy Ballistic module costs 100,000 C-bills.

* Light Energy - Small Laser -25% Duration, Medium Laser -25% Duration, Small Pulse Laser -33% Duration, Medium Pulse Laser -33% Duration, Flamer +33% Range, Small Laser +50% Range, Medium Laser +33% Range, Small Pulse Laser +33% Range, Medium Pulse Laser +33% Range, Flamer -50% Heat/+50% Enemy Heat, Small Laser -25% Heat, Medium Laser -33% Heat, Small Pulse Laser -33% Heat, Medium Pulse Laser -40% Heat, Small Laser -33% Cooldown, Medium Laser -25% Cooldown, Small Pulse Laser -33% Cooldown, Medium Pulse Laser -25% Cooldown. Each Light Energy module costs 50,000 C-bills.

* Heavy Energy - (Any Laser) -15% Duration, (Any) +20% Range, (Any) -20% Heat, (Any) -20% Cooldown, PPC -50% Minimum Range, (Any PPC) +33% Velocity. Each Heavy Energy module costs 100,000 C-bills.

* SRM - (Any SRM) +33% Range, (Any SRM) -25% Cooldown, (Any SRM) -20% Heat, (Any SRM) -20% Spread. Each SRM Module costs 50,000 C-bills.

* LRM - (Any LRM) +20% Range, (Any LRM) -15% Cooldown, (Any LRM) -20% Heat, (Any LRM) -20% Spread, (Any LRM) -25% Minimum Range. Each LRM Module costs 50,000 C-bills.

* Omni mounts cannot mount Weapon Modules at all; omnimech technology uses standardized weapon systems.

This helps distinguish mechs like the Awesome (3 Heavy Energy mounts + 4 Light Energy Mounts) from the Battlemaster (1 Heavy Energy mount + 6 Light Energy Mounts), without having to specifically enforce or encourage a particular weapon load.

EDIT for clarification: If you put a Medium Laser into a Heavy Energy Mount, you ONLY have access to the Heavy Energy modules; in order to use Medium Laser-specific weapon modules you must mount it into a Light Energy mount. This is, for example, the difference between Medium Laser +33% Range and (Any) +20% Range.

EDIT 2: The current Mastery bonus (unlocking a single additional Mech/Module slot) would instead simply unlock the ability to purchase and apply Weapon modules for a given chassis.

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 01 October 2015 - 02:04 PM.


#2 Vetal

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 500 posts
  • LocationUkraine

Posted 01 October 2015 - 03:04 PM

This is the same as present weapon quirks. No difference except additional quirks customization including clans, which brings disbalance. Actually current quirks system is the best balancing thing which have been since the game release. And it's simple and easy applicable.

Edited by Vetal, 01 October 2015 - 03:05 PM.


#3 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 01 October 2015 - 04:13 PM

I'm pretty sure none of that is true.

- Current quirk system favors specific weapons on specific chassis, rather than a heavy/light distinction.
- Current quirk system applies equally to all weapons on a chassis, rather than each weapon being customizable.
- Current quirk system is considered a balance failure by everyone, including the developers.
- Current quirk system is arbitrary and has to be custom-applied to each chassis, rather than general categories that the user can choose to refine themselves.

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 01 October 2015 - 04:17 PM.


#4 CtrlAltWheee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 610 posts

Posted 01 October 2015 - 05:30 PM

This is a lot to think about. MWO has so many moving parts.

One thing I like very much is the idea of making modules fun. Your module prices hit the right note.

As the module system is now, it's not fun and costs PGI money. I have over 100 mechs and refuse to spend 10 million c-bills properly outfitting each one. Instead I spend hours of play time moving modules that are too expensive to buy. And instead of buying mech bays I've spent millions on modules.

One other element that I like is replacing 2x basics as our reward for buying 3 mechs of a chassis. The game would benefit from slowing things down and reducing the heat threshold. Opening up weapon modules is a good reward that's worth it, but not game breaking--depending on the module stats.

Kudos for putting an idea forward.

#5 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 02 October 2015 - 08:13 PM

Yeah, there are a lot of moving parts.

The thing is, though, the tabletop game has been working on this problem more-or-less for 30+ years.

I am separately strongly in favor of sliding heat penalties and lowered shutdown thresholds, but I feel like this is a system that can be discussed on its own.

#6 p4r4g0n

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationMalaysia

Posted 02 October 2015 - 08:35 PM

View PostIaldabaoth, on 01 October 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

So, weapon Quirks are going away, as part of a rebalance pass.
-snip-


I stopped reading after this ... AFAIK, no one has said weapon quirks are being removed from the game so ... source?

#7 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 02 October 2015 - 08:48 PM

http://mwomercs.com/...alance-and-pts/

#8 p4r4g0n

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationMalaysia

Posted 02 October 2015 - 08:53 PM

Where does it say that weapon quirks are being removed entirely in-game (NOT on the PTS).

Did you watch the NGNG podcast where Sean Lang explains that the removal of weapon quirks were to simplify the evaluation of the infowar quirks they were testing and that weapons quirks are most likely going to be reduced but not eliminated?

#9 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 02 October 2015 - 09:22 PM

Fine, reduced; not eliminated. Does that detract from the ability to read what I posted?

#10 p4r4g0n

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationMalaysia

Posted 02 October 2015 - 10:29 PM

Nope but it indicated that the idea probably won't have much traction with PGI.

Having read it, It appears to require a significant amount of work and unless the new re-balancing turns out to be a total disaster, I cannot really cannot see PGI paying any attention to this at this time.

#11 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 03 October 2015 - 05:53 PM

Huh. Well, it certainly doesn't seem like any simpler system would solve the game's problems, and no matter what is proposed it seems like people will generally be opposed to it.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users