15 replies to this topic

[Bront]

Really, module slots as a balancing factor is silly in most cases. The K2 Catapult is overshadowed by some Jagers, Stalkers have plenty of equals now (particularly with ghost heat), and the Jenners are wonky with modules being a differentiators.

In fact, it's been a long while since there's been a mech released with anything other than 2 module slots.


(Yes this is far from the largest MWO problem, but it should be fixed).

[OneEyed Jack]

Bront, on 29 September 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

I don't actually care about how it may or may not affect the game. I Just want more slots.

Fixed that for ya'.

[Bront]

I only own 1 module at all. For the foreseeable future, I don't care personally. I just think it was a poorly thought out balance mechanic that needs to be fixed.

Besides, it should have been "I want meh slots!"

[The Boz]

As a DDC pilot, I approve of a 2+1 module limit.

[Mcchuggernaut]

I have always had a problem with coolant flush being a module slot. In all my prior Mechwarrior experiences (MW2, 3, 4, and even the Mech Assault console games), coolant just came standard on all mechs. It didn't need paid for (just like ammunition is now), and was used as a one-off backup when you REALLY had to cool off fast, like when you were being overwhelmed and needed to keep firing back for a bit longer, or get in that one more alpha strike that could turn the tide of battle. If you used it wisely, it could win you the game, but you could also waste it and that was that, no more coolant, no more free burst damage. So, why the hell did they decide to make it a module slot you have to pay for in this game? You kind-of kill the fun of modules when you make something so important that almost everyone runs it (along with seismic sensor), a module. I say put standard coolant back on mechs, like it always has been, and then people will be more inclined to play with the other modules. If everyone has default coolant, then everyone will still be equal on the battlefield, with the exception of experience and knowing when the time is right to gamble and use that coolant.

This will probably never happen, but I think it really would help the game, and just make it a bit more diverse and fun.

[OneEyed Jack]

Mcchuggernaut, on 29 September 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

I have always had a problem with coolant flush being a module slot. In all my prior Mechwarrior experiences (MW2, 3, 4, and even the Mech Assault console games), coolant just came standard on all mechs.

You're really not making much of a case for it, there, bub.

[Sean von Steinike]

Coolant flush, the lie that was told that it wouldn't be in the game, and yet it is.

[Mcchuggernaut]

OneEyed Jack, on 29 September 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

You're really not making much of a case for it, there, bub.

Meaning?

[Ozasuke]

I love my Catapult K2, and having one base module slot makes sense. It's mastered, and having two feels pretty powerful. I strongly feel it would be overpowered with a total of three (mastered).

I feel pretty bad that my Yen-Lo-Wang has four module slots! Adv. Sensor Range, Adv. Seismic Sensor, Adv. Target Decay, and 360 Target Retention. Intel is life for me and my team, and I can take a pretty good beating long enough for LRM boats and heavies to support me.

Catapult K2 has a very good hardpoint loadout with terrific top speed, torso traverse speed, and torso circle. Two (mastered) module slots feels plentiful.

Oz

[FupDup]

Ozamis, on 29 September 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

I love my Catapult K2, and having one base module slot makes sense. It's mastered, and having two feels pretty powerful. I strongly feel it would be overpowered with a total of three (mastered).

Catapult K2 has a very good hardpoint loadout with terrific top speed, torso traverse speed, and torso circle. Two (mastered) module slots feels plentiful.

Does this make the Firebrand overpowered? Because it has identical or better loadout capabilities as the K2 and gets 3 module slots when mastered. It even gets better hitboxes and high-mounted ballistics too.

Edited by FupDup, 29 September 2013 - 04:25 PM.

[Ozasuke]

FupDup, on 29 September 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Does this make the Firebrand overpowered? Because it has identical or better loadout capabilities as the K2 and gets 3 module slots when mastered. It even gets better hitboxes too.

I have a mastered Firebrand, and it does indeed have more hardpoints than Catapult K2. This doesn't mean it's better; it's just different in what roles it can fill and its presence on the battlefield.

Interesting that you point out the hitboxes... Jagermechs are pretty easy to kill in comparison due to the chassis not being as agile as the Catapult chassis. A few well placed shots in either torso will reduce the Jagermech's firepower by half if not killed by running an XL engine.

The difference is that the Catapult K2 can get away with an XL engine since its CT is a magnet for getting shot, and its silhouette is not a flat wall like the Jagermech. It also has a smaller torso circle, so it can't effectively shoot on the move while in flight or tracking targets.

This is all symantics in the end, really, since it boils down to how each chassis and/or variant is played, but I strongly feel that--in context of modules--the Firebrand variant falls behind and could do with another module slot.

Oz

[Ozasuke]

FupDup, on 29 September 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

and high-mounted ballistics too.

Just saw your edit. Are you comparing to a similarly-fitted K2? High-mounted ballistic hardpoints have a different role than the K2's mid-mounted ballistic hardpoints. It encouraged me to fit my Firebrand as a sniper and my K2 as a brawler, and both work out pretty damn well.

[FupDup]

Ozamis, on 29 September 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I have a mastered Firebrand, and it does indeed have more hardpoints than Catapult K2. This doesn't mean it's better; it's just different in what roles it can fill and its presence on the battlefield.

The role of direct-fire support is shared by both mechs. The FB just gets to have its ballistics moved up to arms, two extra torso lasers, and an extra module slot.

Ozamis, on 29 September 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

Interesting that you point out the hitboxes... Jagermechs are pretty easy to kill in comparison due to the chassis not being as agile as the Catapult chassis. A few well placed shots in either torso will reduce the Jagermech's firepower by half if not killed by running an XL engine.

The difference is that the Catapult K2 can get away with an XL engine since its CT is a magnet for getting shot, and its silhouette is not a flat wall like the Jagermech. It also has a smaller torso circle, so it can't effectively shoot on the move while in flight or tracking targets.

The funny thing is that I see a pretty large proportion of Jagers running XL so that they can make the most of their ballistic hardpoints. Doesn't seem to bother them a whole lot.

Also, the Cat's CT requires a pretty insane level of torso twisting to manage to shield and even then it doesn't always work. The Jager probably has an easier time shielding a side torso than Cats have shielding their CT. I admittedly don't own Jagers yet (I do however have 359 matches in the K2 though), but I do own Kintaros--which have very large side torsos (after the hitbox fix) and it can tank way more damage than my K2 ever could...and this is WITH XL engines being used in them, if I used STD engines they would be damn good zombies because the sides attract so much fire.

Ozamis, on 29 September 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Just saw your edit. Are you comparing to a similarly-fitted K2? High-mounted ballistic hardpoints have a different role than the K2's mid-mounted ballistic hardpoints. It encouraged me to fit my Firebrand as a sniper and my K2 as a brawler, and both work out pretty damn well.

Yes. The entire point of the comparison is to take whatever hypothetical K2 loadout and slap it into a FB. It doesn't matter what the exact loadout in question is.

Anyways, having torso ballistics doesn't matter a whole lot in mechs lacking lower arm actuators because the shots converge just fine from the arms on such mechs. If you stuff something like AC/2 or AC/5 in your K2's torsos, it requires you to expose more of your fragile CT than just firing your arm lasers. The FB doesn't have this weakness. It gets the same arm-lasers in addition to having lower risks to sniping with ballistics, and in brawls you can aim higher/lower with them. Even if you just use measly MGs for ballstics, the vertical articulation of arm mounts is an advantage. The only case that comes to mind where the K2 has a loadout advantage is being able to carry arm lasers at the same time as AC/20s...but then again the K2 can't use XL with AC/20s so that kinda defeats the purpose of it.

Also, Catapults in general are not good brawlers because of their CT issues; they'll get torn apart by other brawlers like Cataphracts and Victors. You can get away with "support brawling" by shooting distracted people, but that's the extent of it.

Edited by FupDup, 29 September 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

The Boz, on 29 September 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

As a DDC pilot, I approve of a 2+1 module limit.

As a DDC pilot, I don't,

Stop giving them ideas, or they'll break something again.

[Ozasuke]

FupDup, on 29 September 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

The entire point of the comparison is to take whatever hypothetical K2 loadout and slap it into a FB. It doesn't matter what the exact loadout in question is.

And this is my point altogether. K2 fulfills different roles than the Firebrand, so doing a hypothetical comparison is moot. Let's be honest with the pros & cons: Firebrand has high-mounted ballistic hardpoints, more hardpoints overall, and a smaller CT hitbox... Catapult K2 has better agility with its torso traverse speed and turning circle and can safely mount an XL engine (in comparison).

I will point out again that I love playing my Catapult K2, so this debate is a win/win for me. I'm just being honest in my opinion that adding an additional module slot will tilt my K2 as I find it to be a more versatile 'mech for my playstyle. I concede that this clearly isn't the case for everyone.

Cheers,
Oz

[Eddrick]

I have a question for Bront. Having extra Module Slots would be nice on the ones that start with only, one. What would you use that extra Module Slot for on a Mech that already has an extra Module Slot from "Master Slot"? Consumables? Personally, I prefer the permanent Modules. But, to each their own.

Ozamis, on 29 September 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

I have a mastered Firebrand, and it does indeed have more hardpoints than Catapult K2. This doesn't mean it's better; it's just different in what roles it can fill and its presence on the battlefield.

Interesting that you point out the hitboxes... Jagermechs are pretty easy to kill in comparison due to the chassis not being as agile as the Catapult chassis. A few well placed shots in either torso will reduce the Jagermech's firepower by half if not killed by running an XL engine.

The difference is that the Catapult K2 can get away with an XL engine since its CT is a magnet for getting shot, and its silhouette is not a flat wall like the Jagermech. It also has a smaller torso circle, so it can't effectively shoot on the move while in flight or tracking targets.

This is all symantics in the end, really, since it boils down to how each chassis and/or variant is played, but I strongly feel that--in context of modules--the Firebrand variant falls behind and could do with another module slot.

Oz

I have considered trying the JaggerMech. But, I don't want to be forced to use a Standard Engine on it, because of people aiming for the Side Torsos on purpose. When a Catapult-K2 can run an XL Engine with little worry. Trying, the Orion sealed the possibility of using a XL Engine on a JaggerMech, for me. People where fishing for an XL Engine on mine, by hitting the Missile Launcher on the Left Torso before anything else. The Missile Launcher on the Left Torso was receiving more damage then the rest of the Mech combined.