25 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

I guess this has to be said in its own thread to be noticed:

If a Mech has 3 Ballistic Slots in one compartment, then it's NOT meant to run an AC/20, regardless of the stock configuration. We're playing MechWarrior, not BattleTech. "Stock" is meaningless in these parts; we have a MechLab.

Mechs with 3 Ballistic slots in one compartment should not be getting AC/20 buffs unless your SOLE intention is to encourage poor Mech design and wasteful builds.

Look at the King Crabs: KC with 3 ballistics in each arm get AC/20 buffs, as if the game programmers are saying "Please ignore those other ballistic slots we put there." If anyone knew how this game is played, they would acknowledge that the KC with 1 ballistic in each arm is the one meant for AC/20s because it can carry a multitude of backup weapons using the other, non-ballistic slots.

Giving Mechs with 3 ballistic slots an AC/20 buff is literally an example of trading deliberate wastefullness for reward.

I'll say this in different terms: The Hunchback 4G has 3 ballistic slots in the shoulder, but for some reason we're supposed to run a AC/20 that does not allow other Autocannons to be used. That's like selling a Muscle Car with a V8 engine and a supercharger mount, but disabling use of the supercharger mount unless you downgrade the engine to a V6.

[FupDup]

Technically, the Hunchie 4G can run 2 MGs to back up its AC/20.

The Crab though is certainly weird.

[MauttyKoray]

Prosperity Park, on 14 December 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

I guess this has to be said in its own thread to be noticed:

If a Mech has 3 Ballistic Slots in one compartment, then it's NOT meant to run an AC/20, regardless of the stock configuration. We're playing MechWarrior, not BattleTech. "Stock" is meaningless in these parts; we have a MechLab.

Mechs with 3 Ballistic slots in one compartment should not be getting AC/20 buffs unless your SOLE intention is to encourage poor Mech design and wasteful builds.

Look at the King Crabs: KC with 3 ballistics in each arm get AC/20 buffs, as if the game programmers are saying "Please ignore those other ballistic slots we put there." If anyone knew how this game is played, they would acknowledge that the KC with 1 ballistic in each arm is the one meant for AC/20s because it can carry a multitude of backup weapons using the other, non-ballistic slots.

Giving Mechs with 3 ballistic slots an AC/20 buff is literally an example of trading deliberate wastefullness for reward.

I'll say this in different terms: The Hunchback 4G has 3 ballistic slots in the shoulder, but for some reason we're supposed to run a AC/20 that does not allow other Autocannons to be used. That's like selling a Muscle Car with a V8 engine and a supercharger mount, but disabling use of the supercharger mount unless you downgrade the engine to a V6.

Have you ever put 2 MGs in with that AC20? Its scary.

[Hawk819]

Prosperity Park, on 14 December 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

I guess this has to be said in its own thread to be noticed:

If a Mech has 3 Ballistic Slots in one compartment, then it's NOT meant to run an AC/20, regardless of the stock configuration. We're playing MechWarrior, not BattleTech. "Stock" is meaningless in these parts; we have a MechLab.

Mechs with 3 Ballistic slots in one compartment should not be getting AC/20 buffs unless your SOLE intention is to encourage poor Mech design and wasteful builds.

Look at the King Crabs: KC with 3 ballistics in each arm get AC/20 buffs, as if the game programmers are saying "Please ignore those other ballistic slots we put there." If anyone knew how this game is played, they would acknowledge that the KC with 1 ballistic in each arm is the one meant for AC/20s because it can carry a multitude of backup weapons using the other, non-ballistic slots.

Giving Mechs with 3 ballistic slots an AC/20 buff is literally an example of trading deliberate wastefullness for reward.

I'll say this in different terms: The Hunchback 4G has 3 ballistic slots in the shoulder, but for some reason we're supposed to run a AC/20 that does not allow other Autocannons to be used. That's like selling a Muscle Car with a V8 engine and a supercharger mount, but disabling use of the supercharger mount unless you downgrade the engine to a V6.

I'm in total agreement with this. I brought this up with my friend ZetaFalcon on our Comms, and he agreed with me that it's total waste of a quirk. So therefore, I'm foregoing the AC/20 and going with UAC 5 and AC/5 setup. Reason: I already got the Range and Cooldown for the AC/5 modules unlocked at level 5. I know it won't give me much in the way of range and cooldown, 10% and 12.5% is better than nothing. I'll keep the ER Lg Lasers and maybe add a missile to it. We shall see.

[Matthew Ace]

The way I see it, the quirks introduced in such a manner makes it a tradeoff for not fully utilising all ballistic slots.

IMO, however, ballistic-hardpoint-heavy mechs without quite the tonnage to take advantage of it should just be given general ballistic quirks instead of splitting 50/50 between general and weapon-specific.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 14 December 2014 - 11:22 PM.

[Alek Ituin]

While I disagree that Mechs shouldn't get quirks that enforce stock builds, I feel the stock builds should be reinforced by the hardpoints.

I.E. - HBK-4G has 3 Ballistic hardpoints. You'd want to fill those with 3 Ballistic weapons, obviously. Instead, it should be 1 Ballistic hardpoint dedicated to carrying 1 AC/20, nothing else.

Therefore you reinforce stock builds through both quirks and hardpoints. Screw "muh creativity", Mechs have variants for a reason, and variants should all have some inherent purpose.

[The Boz]

Alek Ituin, on 14 December 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

While I disagree that Mechs shouldn't get quirks that enforce stock builds, I feel the stock builds should be reinforced by the hardpoints.

I.E. - HBK-4G has 3 Ballistic hardpoints. You'd want to fill those with 3 Ballistic weapons, obviously. Instead, it should be 1 Ballistic hardpoint dedicated to carrying 1 AC/20, nothing else.

Therefore you reinforce stock builds through both quirks and hardpoints. Screw "muh creativity", Mechs have variants for a reason, and variants should all have some inherent purpose.

Hell to the Nope on this idea. We don't need more shoe-horning in this game.

[MauttyKoray]

Alek Ituin, on 14 December 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

While I disagree that Mechs shouldn't get quirks that enforce stock builds, I feel the stock builds should be reinforced by the hardpoints.

I.E. - HBK-4G has 3 Ballistic hardpoints. You'd want to fill those with 3 Ballistic weapons, obviously. Instead, it should be 1 Ballistic hardpoint dedicated to carrying 1 AC/20, nothing else.

Therefore you reinforce stock builds through both quirks and hardpoints. Screw "muh creativity", Mechs have variants for a reason, and variants should all have some inherent purpose.

Again, AC20 + 2MGs + 3ML. Its a scary effective combination that can run ~90kph.

[Risko Vinsheen]

The way I see it, the quirks on the King Crab are done that way to give people options. They can run a build using all 6 ballistics, or they can run two AC/20s and get penalized less for not using all the hardpoints.

Basically they're giving incentive for different builds instead of making everyone feel like they have to run the same build as everyone else. It looks fine to me.

Edited by Risko Vinsheen, 15 December 2014 - 12:38 AM.

[MikeBend]

+1 to the above post.

Nobody makes you stick AC20 in, if you got AC20 quirks. It is not a wasted quirk, it compensates for unused hardpoints. It is funny to see people write how they are "forced to use it, because of quirks". So if you stick 3x AC2 or 2XUAC5 in, what? it stops shooting? How on earth did you play before the quirks?

Edited by MikeBend, 15 December 2014 - 12:44 AM.

[Mercules]

Prosperity Park, on 14 December 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

I'll say this in different terms: The Hunchback 4G has 3 ballistic slots in the shoulder, but for some reason we're supposed to run a AC/20 that does not allow other Autocannons to be used. That's like selling a Muscle Car with a V8 engine and a supercharger mount, but disabling use of the supercharger mount unless you downgrade the engine to a V6.

...and the HBK-4G is known for it's AC/20, not it's 3 AC2s. So...

[Alek Ituin]

The Boz, on 14 December 2014 - 11:57 PM, said:

Hell to the Nope on this idea. We don't need more shoe-horning in this game.

This game needs more shoe-horning. Apparently all a Mech is to people like you, is a boiled down series of hardpoints and hitboxes. It's not like they're designed for specific functions and goals or anything. Like the HBK-4G was designed to carry an AC/20, making it a beast in CQC. Or how the Cyclops was a command Assault, the Panther a PPC toting Light, and the Chameleon as a trainer. They're all built for different purposes, and they should all have different purposes.

Diversifying chassis roles is more important than "muh creativity".

[The Wakelord]

Alek Ituin, on 15 December 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:

This game needs more shoe-horning. Apparently all a Mech is to people like you, is a boiled down series of hardpoints and hitboxes. It's not like they're designed for specific functions and goals or anything. Like the HBK-4G was designed to carry an AC/20, making it a beast in CQC. Or how the Cyclops was a command Assault, the Panther a PPC toting Light, and the Chameleon as a trainer. They're all built for different purposes, and they should all have different purposes.

Diversifying chassis roles is more important than "muh creativity".

To clarify: Diversifying chassis roles is more important to you than "yuh creativity." For others, variation in mech stats on paper, not fluff, is more important.

Through using quirks & hardpoints PGI is allowing both the 'canon players' and the 'cannon players' both enjoy benefits - one through buffs to stock configurations, and the other through ongoing versatility.

I don't see a problem with it, except for the small niche of mechanic-focused players who demand full optimization (a "munchkin" or "min maxer") rather than quality. An example? The OP.

Note: I am not casting judgement on any of these camps, and depending on the game sit firmly within 1 camp or another, so I can see both sides of the argument here.

[The Boz]

Alek Ituin, on 15 December 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:

This game needs more shoe-horning. Apparently all a Mech is to people like you, is a boiled down series of hardpoints and hitboxes. It's not like they're designed for specific functions and goals or anything. Like the HBK-4G was designed to carry an AC/20, making it a beast in CQC. Or how the Cyclops was a command Assault, the Panther a PPC toting Light, and the Chameleon as a trainer. They're all built for different purposes, and they should all have different purposes.

Diversifying chassis roles is more important than "muh creativity".

OK, yes, but...
1. We don't have role warfare.
2. We have no need for trainer mechs.
3. Replacing a hard-role mech once the meta shifts can take a LONG time in order to farm up the CB and XP for the new mechs.
4. Creativity is important.

[Alek Ituin]

The Boz, on 15 December 2014 - 04:10 AM, said:

OK, yes, but...
1. We don't have role warfare.
2. We have no need for trainer mechs.
3. Replacing a hard-role mech once the meta shifts can take a LONG time in order to farm up the CB and XP for the new mechs.
4. Creativity is important.

1. We don't have role warfare because there's no point to it with such open-ended customization. Any Mech can be anything.
2. I'll play along. We don't have a need for Command Mechs either, but we still got the Atlas. Your point?
3. Then lower the prices, like people have been asking for since Paulnomics took over (or whatever the snarky nickname is).
4. Creativity also breeds cookie-cutter copy-paste munchkin builds that ruin the entire point of having customization.

I like numbered points, can we keep it like this? It's much easier to address each on in turn...

[The Boz]

Creative numbering FTW!
A) A meta shift would absolutely destroy a mech, more so than it does now. Take Clan Lights, and multiply that by nine. That's how destroyed mechs could be with every shift.
ii) The Atlas in this game has ECM compatibility. So at least there's that. What would a trainer mech have? Extra XP? Balance the in-game with the out-of-game performance?
c) Paulconomy. And it still creates a big gap between those that follow forums/meta (or are lucky), and those that don't.
4) It can, but it doesn't have to. There's a fine line here. I think PGI almost has it, but has too many weapon-specific quirks, instead of generalistic ones (it could differentiate lasers and pulse lasers and PPCs, and not just a single model, in order to appease both).

[Macksheen]

The issue is that at one point they decided a stock AC20 meant it needed lots of space, so put in 3 hard points. This runs counter to player consumption, who see three hardpoints and think "what 3 guns can I cram into there". Many / most of the AC20 spots are 2-3 hard points, though the default model just mounts the one gun.

I think the next serious thing that could be looked at is a hard point pass. We see it on the clan side looking for other omnipods, but you could do it on the IS side and improve some things w/o much pain or work. For instance, adding a 2nd missile mount to a SHD CT doesn't make them super missile boats, but has the effect of making them better at small SRMs or streaks, improving the position of streaks but not overpowering things (as you can't put much else in a CT slot). etc. etc.

[Alek Ituin]

The Boz, on 15 December 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:

Creative numbering FTW!
A) A meta shift would absolutely destroy a mech, more so than it does now. Take Clan Lights, and multiply that by nine. That's how destroyed mechs could be with every shift.
ii) The Atlas in this game has ECM compatibility. So at least there's that. What would a trainer mech have? Extra XP? Balance the in-game with the out-of-game performance?
c) Paulconomy. And it still creates a big gap between those that follow forums/meta (or are lucky), and those that don't.
4) It can, but it doesn't have to. There's a fine line here. I think PGI almost has it, but has too many weapon-specific quirks, instead of generalistic ones (it could differentiate lasers and pulse lasers and PPCs, and not just a single model, in order to appease both).

I. You've already pointed out that Mechs are destroyed each meta shift. With restricted customization and reinforced stock roles, we would most likely see fewer, and less drastic, meta shifts. The problem here is that open customization breeds its own downfall - munchkin builds. Meta. Cheese. The builds that gain advantages by exploiting loopholes in the system. If you give someone clearly defined boundaries, yet space enough to be creative, you can control the meta without the hassle. Playing devils advocate, too little or too much wiggle room can make or break the system.
2. I actually support the idea that new players should be able to get 3 trainers plus mechbays, for free, upon fully completing a competent and thorough tutorial. Since Chameleons teach heat management, they'd be a prime choice for such a Mech, and an XP bonus would make them invaluable for both learning and earning.
E. Thanks, I couldn't remember what it was. But there's really no way of bridging that gap without integrating the forums in to the game. Sadly, what's good for the game may alienate some players in the process. I suppose displaying patch notes in-game may help some, so players can get a good look at changes without having the navigate to the forums.
4. I see your point, and agree, but the reality is that our customization rules have bred munchkin builds. If PGI can figure out some way of truly enforcing chassis/variant diversity, without impinging on customization, more power to them. My point is that the easiest way to stop it is to simply restrict the customization to some degree. Tailor the possible builds to be more stock-a-like, and you'd both curb munchkin builds, and promote stock builds.

Wow, numbered points really make this so much easier...

[Rhaythe]

I'm absolutely loving the Hunchback-GI with a Guass cooldown module...

[Fut]

MauttyKoray, on 15 December 2014 - 12:04 AM, said:

Again, AC20 + 2MGs + 3ML. Its a scary effective combination that can run ~90kph.

Whoa.. What engine are you using?
From what I recall, the only way to cram all that into a HBK-4G is to run it with a smaller engine, which means it isn't going 90km/h.