10 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

Looking at the hitpoint quirks I'm noticing a lot of inconsistency in how they distributed to different variants. I'll use the hunchback as an example.

Hunchback GI: +168 hitpoints
Hunchback 4G: +168 hitpoints
Hunchback 4H: 0
Hunchback 4SP +168 hitpoints
Hunchback 4J: 0
Hunchback 4P: 0

Let's break this down some more

Ballistic HBK:

Hunchback GI, Hunchback 4G and Hunchback 4H are all basically Big ballistic + a few lasers. Why would I ever use the 4H when the GI and 4G have such a big advantage?

Missile HBK:

The 4SP gets all the hitpoint quirks while the 4J gets nothing. They both have 2 missile and a bunch of lasers. Granted the 4J has a whopping +1 energy hardpoint, but a lot of current builds don't even use all 6 energy hardpoints. On top of that you gave the 4J worse Target aquisition time, worse sensor range, and worse target retention time. You have made the 4SP better at practically everything by a country mile.

Hunchback 4P (lasers):

No hitpoints despite the fact that its traditionally a short-ish range mech? I might as well use a clan laserboat if its going to give me nothing in the way of hitpoints.


So here we are. I'm not sure what your final plans are on the quirk department. Maybe you'll add a bunch of weapon quirks to counteract these shortcomings. However, my suggestion is to save yourself and your players a lot of headache. Apply some sort of uniform hitpoint quirk for Inner Sphere mechs so that we don't have these gaping holes in the IS line up.

IS 50 tonners get +X hitpoints
IS 75 tonners get +Y hitpoints
IS 30 tonners get +Z hitpoints
and so on.


Suggestion 2:

My final suggestion that's related to all this is how these hitpoint quirks should be displayed. The armor quirks need to be shown in the mechlab on the paperdoll. My Right Torso on my hunchback 4G currently reads:
Front: 48
Back: 0

Because it receives +8 armor to both front and back, it should read:
Front: 56
Back: 8

TL;DR - There is too much inconsistency with how IS hitpoints are distributed even from variant to variant. If we aren't careful we will have variants that are in every way worse than another. Save yourself the trouble and just do some tonnage based formula for IS hitpoint quirks.

Edited by Jman5, 06 November 2015 - 10:54 AM.

[East Indy]

This needs PGI clarification.

1. Are devs playing with specific variants to see how they perform? If so, disparities make sense (only) on the PTS.
2. Are devs trying to incentivize variants? If so, this will be confusing to new players and frustrating to veterans.

In most cases, a chassis is a chassis. Dragon variants don't have smaller center torsos. Jager variants don't have less-exposed side torsos. Yes, some variants have different roles and major hardpoint locations. But that doesn't require armor differences of nearly 50%! Besides, if powerful offensive quirks will be abandoned, player customization will likely deviate from lore-inspired/dev-intended roles.

If variants absolutely need to be distinguished, what we really should be seeing is something like this:

Hunchback GI: +152 hitpoints
Hunchback 4G: +168 hitpoints
Hunchback 4H: +152 hitpoints
Hunchback 4SP +168 hitpoints
Hunchback 4J: +152 hitpoints
Hunchback 4P: +168 hitpoints

Deviation of about 10%. Bottom line to players: Hunchbacks are hardy.

[Mcgral18]

Jman5, on 06 November 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

Suggestion 2:

My final suggestion that's related to all this is how these hitpoint quirks should be displayed. The armor quirks need to be shown in the mechlab on the paperdoll. My Right Torso on my hunchback 4G currently reads:
Front: 48
Back: 0

Because it receives +8 armor to both front and back, it should read:
Front: 56
Back: 8

TL;DR - There is too much inconsistency with how IS hitpoints are distributed even from variant to variant. If we aren't careful we will have variants that are in every way worse than another. Save yourself the trouble and just do some tonnage based formula for IS hitpoint quirks.

That's not entirely true either, because of the Ghost Torso effect.

So, another +8 to the back

Front: 56
Back: 816


Probably not working as intended, but no response about it yet. Since it counts as a separate component, your solution might not work properly.


It's also weird...the component dies after you deal the 16 damage, but ALSO the stock 8 armour. So, component dies, and opens to the Structure of the normal mech.

[Jman5]

Mcgral18, on 06 November 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

That's not entirely true either, because of the Ghost Torso effect.

So, another +8 to the back

Front: 56
Back: 816


Probably not working as intended, but no response about it yet. Since it counts as a separate component, your solution might not work properly.


It's also weird...the component dies after you deal the 16 damage, but ALSO the stock 8 armour. So, component dies, and opens to the Structure of the normal mech.

Whatever the actual values are, It should say it on the paper doll in the mechlab. That way players know how much armor they got where.

[Dracol]

Jman5, on 06 November 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

TL;DR - There is too much inconsistency with how IS hitpoints are distributed even from variant to variant. If we aren't careful we will have variants that are in every way worse than another. Save yourself the trouble and just do some tonnage based formula for IS hitpoint quirks.

Looking at the 4G and 4H, and assuming these were final numbers, we can gain insight into the value weapon slots have been giving within PGI's new, 4 pillar balance metric thingy they developed.

4G 3 Ballistic in the right torso and armor bonus. 4H 1 Ballistic and 2 Lasers in the right torso and no armor bonus. Only difference between the two as far as I could see.

It would seem 2 laser hard points are equal to 2 ballistic and armor quirks.

What sort of weight would you give to 2 ballistic hard points vrs 2 laser hard points?

Finally, totally agree with displaying armor figures in the mech lab.

[sycocys]

I had posted asking for more information about this earlier.

What I reckon happened is that they either set the armor/sensor quirks based on stock loadouts, or based on/including the live quirks - possibly both.

[East Indy]

Dracol, on 06 November 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

What sort of weight would you give to 2 ballistic hard points vrs 2 laser hard points?

Maybe armor is the wrong answer.

Doesn't it make more sense if defensive quirks/bonuses are only to 1) Correct inferior geometry and 2) Increase TTK overall?

[Dracol]

East Indy, on 06 November 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

Maybe armor is the wrong answer.

Doesn't it make more sense if defensive quirks/bonuses are only to 1) Correct inferior geometry and 2) Increase TTK overall?

It is simpler. More sense though? I wouldn't go that far.

Fundamentally, defensive quirks are not being used to "Correct inferior geometry and Increase TTK overall" per say, but utilized along side sensors, shape, armament, maneuverability, etc. to determine a final set of stats to balance out with other mechs of the same tonnage.

Making one variant of a chassis more of a glass cannon compared to others gives players another variable to consider when deciding which mech to purchase. The mech lab is a huge portion of the enjoyment for a lot of players and having to weigh these types of options adds more interest to it.

In the 4H/4G department, a player must consider if the 2L/1B torso is worth giving up an armor bonus.

Edited by Dracol, 06 November 2015 - 02:21 PM.

[Jman5]

East Indy, on 06 November 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

Maybe armor is the wrong answer.

Doesn't it make more sense if defensive quirks/bonuses are only to 1) Correct inferior geometry and 2) Increase TTK overall?

I think PGI is on the right track giving Inner Sphere some sort of hitpoint advantage over comparable clan mechs. Clans get all the cool gadgets that do more damage, weigh less, take fewer slots and they can mix and match omnipods around.

Now we just need some sort of across-the-board consistency so we don't have these holes in the inner sphere lineup. That way we can say that Inner Sphere's "thing" is that they are hardier machines, while Clan's "thing" is that they have more offensive power.

[East Indy]

Jman5, on 06 November 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

I think PGI is on the right track giving Inner Sphere some sort of hitpoint advantage over comparable clan mechs. Clans get all the cool gadgets that do more damage, weigh less, take fewer slots and they can mix and match omnipods around.

Makes perfect sense, especially if it helps close the gap on Clan XLs. Per Dracol's example above, though, I agree with you that "gaps" between variants will result in far more problems than interesting choices.

Dracol, on 06 November 2015 - 02:20 PM, said:

In the 4H/4G department, a player must consider if the 2L/1B torso is worth giving up an armor bonus.

I'd venture to guess that they'll pick 168 points of armor over a fourth medium laser every time.

While I agree that crazy-powerful quirks can be excessive, I still think the best way to balance a pair like the 4G and 4H is with weapon quirks; to tune up — in this example — the 4H's "thing," which is the otherwise inferior AC/10.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Yeah, durability is the single greatest advantage a 'Mech can have.

To make a chassis more durable than others may make sense; but to make a variant that has no differentiating feature arbitrarily tougher makes no sense at all!