10 replies to this topic

[Kaeb Odellas]

Why not just give basic specs more variation between each mech? Instead of tying internals and max armor to tonnage, or giving each mech the same sensor stats and detectability, why not make all of these things variable depending on the mech?

For instance, Locusts are teeny tiny mechs, so why should they show up on sensors at the same distance as an Atlas?

Jagermechs have that big radar antenna mounted on top of their heads, but they serve no in-game purpose other than provide a big juicy target as you crest a hill. Why shouldn't they have a longer sensor range as a result?

Why does the Jenner have the same CT armor and internals as the Firestarter, when the Jenner's CT is twice as large?

Why should each 50-tonner have the same base internals and max armor as any other 50-tonner, when these mechs all have widely different shapes and sizes to their components?

Why should each mech have the same number of crit slots in each component when they're all vastly different in size and shape?

Opening up these stats for greater variation should give the designers greater means to balance these mechs without having to rely on increasingly long lists of quirks to compensate for their weaknesses. For instance, I would love to give the PB another energy hardpoint in the head and shrink its sensor suite, giving it more firepower but less sensor range as a result. Or shrink its life support systems and give it reduced internal structure in the head instead. Or, since Awesomes are so fat, give them extra slots in each of their torso locations.

[FupDup]

Quirks can actually be used to accomplish many of these items, at least in theory. Increased (or decreased?) internals/armor is already possible. I would assume that things like sensor range and radar footprint (how far away you can be seen) could be quirkable as well, or at least they should be. Recon/stealth based quirks would be refreshing, as like 90% of the current quirks are focused purely on offense/damage.


For internal critslots, that's a holdover from BT. It's weird but it doesn't seem to cause any balancing problems. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In some ways it might be a bit of an equalizer, in that it allows mechs with low tonnage for guns to often load up on more tech upgrades (i.e. lights using both Endo + FF).

An unintended consequence of toying with max/min critslots would be that some mechs would get to squeeze in more space-eating tech upgrades than their cohorts, or some mechs would have less space for upgrades as well. There was supposedly some special rules in a book called Maxtech that actually made critslots vary by weight class...light mechs not being able to use Endo Steel would suck.


For the Awesome/PB getting more head slots, there's actually a future item called the Small Cockpit. It frees up 1 ton and 1 slot in the head, but makes the mech harder to pilot (because you're crammed into a tiny space). In MWO that could be represented by a reduced FoV, or something like the Locust 1V(P)'s prison cage.

The issue with implementing Small Cockpits is that PGI tied in cockpit weight to the engine, rather than having the cockpit having its own weight. That would have to change for them to be possible, and would probably be too much effort. This is also the reason why we might never get XL Gyro, Heavy-Duty Gyro, or Compact Gyro.

Edited by FupDup, 31 January 2015 - 10:07 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

FupDup, on 31 January 2015 - 09:53 PM, said:

Quirks can actually be used to accomplish many of these items, at least in theory. Increased (or decreased?) internals/armor is already possible. I would assume that things like sensor range and radar footprint (how far away you can be seen) could be quirkable as well, or at least they should be. Recon/stealth based quirks would be refreshing, as like 90% of the current quirks are focused purely on offense/damage.


For internal critslots, that's a holdover from BT. It's weird but it doesn't seem to cause any balancing problems. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In some ways it might be a bit of an equalizer, in that it allows mechs with low tonnage for guns to often load up on more tech upgrades (i.e. lights using both Endo + FF).

An unintended consequence of toying with max/min critslots would be that some mechs would get to squeeze in more space-eating tech upgrades than their cohorts, or some mechs would have less space for upgrades as well. There was supposedly some special rules in a book called Maxtech that actually made critslots vary by weight class...light mechs not being able to use Endo Steel would suck.


For the Awesome/PB getting more head slots, there's actually a future item called the Small Cockpit. It frees up 1 ton and 1 slot in the head, but makes the mech harder to pilot (because you're crammed into a tiny space). In MWO that could be represented by a reduced FoV, or something like the Locust 1V(P)'s prison cage.

The issue with implementing Small Cockpits is that PGI tied in cockpit weight to the engine, rather than having the cockpit having its own weight. That would have to change for them to be possible, and would probably be too much effort. This is also the reason why we might never get XL Gyro, Heavy-Duty Gyro, or Compact Gyro.

My problem with using quirks is that it assumes all mechs of the same weight should start out identical in stats, despite being very different mechs built by various manufacturers. There's a lack of variety in certain stats, when variety should definitely exist. This is a useful abstraction in a pen and paper tabletop game, but is totally unnecessary for a PC game.

This would be especially useful as it means PGI will have to redesign the UI to accommodate it, which they need to do anyway. "+10 to leg internals" doesn't tell the player a whole lot when they don't know how much internals it has to begin with.

[FupDup]

Kaeb Odellas, on 31 January 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

My problem with using quirks is that it assumes all mechs of the same weight should start out identical in stats, despite being very different mechs built by various manufacturers. There's a lack of variety in certain stats, when variety should definitely exist. This is a useful abstraction in a pen and paper tabletop game, but is totally unnecessary for a PC game.

Quirks reach a roughly similar endpoint, just with different, more direct/simplified methods.

Kaeb Odellas, on 31 January 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

This would be especially useful as it means PGI will have to redesign the UI to accommodate it, which they need to do anyway. "+10 to leg internals" doesn't tell the player a whole lot when they don't know how much internals it has to begin with.

An actual mechlab display/representation of armor/structure and other quirks would certainly be nice to have, however.

Edited by FupDup, 31 January 2015 - 10:28 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

FupDup, on 31 January 2015 - 10:27 PM, said:

Quirks reach a roughly similar endpoint, just with different, more direct/simplified methods.

Roughly similar, yes, but with a wrong-headed philosophy behind it. Imagine our future smurfy's layout mechlab displaying the internal strength on a Locust's leg. Should it display 8 internals, with the quirks list on the side saying "Right leg internal strength +8", or should it just say it has 16 internals and be done with it? Maybe an awkward compromise of 8 (+8)?

Right now, the Locust has 14 entries on its quirks list, when 10 of those should simply be incorporated into the base stats of the Locust.

[FupDup]

Kaeb Odellas, on 31 January 2015 - 10:47 PM, said:

Roughly similar, yes, but with a wrong-headed philosophy behind it. Imagine our future smurfy's layout mechlab displaying the internal strength on a Locust's leg. Should it display 8 internals, with the quirks list on the side saying "Right leg internal strength +8", or should it just say it has 16 internals and be done with it? Maybe an awkward compromise of 8 (+8)?

Right now, the Locust has 14 entries on its quirks list, when 10 of those should simply be incorporated into the base stats of the Locust.

I imagine that displaying the base value and the quirk bonus value right next to it would be ideal (i.e. Lolcust 8 + 8). I also think that things like heat efficiency etc. should display the "default" efficiency and then the quirk buffed efficiency right above or below it. Maybe have just one bar with two different colors, i.e. have some blue dots extending off the normal red bar to represent the new buffed values.

I don't think that integrating most quirks into the base stats would necessarily make it easier to figure out how the mech works. Let's continue off that Lolcust example. We know that he gets a 25% ERLL cooldown bonus. Would the player have to actually navigate to the CT energy hardpoint and select an ER Large Laser, and compare that ERLL to one mounted on one of his other mechs? If somebody didn't have the normal ERLL cooldowns memorized this might be annoying. I think that explicitly writing out what a mech's bonuses are makes it easier to size up a mech's abilities at a glance....

[Kaeb Odellas]

FupDup, on 31 January 2015 - 10:54 PM, said:

I imagine that displaying the base value and the quirk bonus value right next to it would be ideal (i.e. Lolcust 8 + 8). I also think that things like heat efficiency etc. should display the "default" efficiency and then the quirk buffed efficiency right above or below it. Maybe have just one bar with two different colors, i.e. have some blue dots extending off the normal red bar to represent the new buffed values.

I don't think that integrating most quirks into the base stats would necessarily make it easier to figure out how the mech works. Let's continue off that Lolcust example. We know that he gets a 25% ERLL cooldown bonus. Would the player have to actually navigate to the CT energy hardpoint and select an ER Large Laser, and compare that ERLL to one mounted on one of his other mechs? If somebody didn't have the normal ERLL cooldowns memorized this might be annoying. I think that explicitly writing out what a mech's bonuses are makes it easier to size up a mech's abilities at a glance....

Weapon quirks are fine as they are, actually. That's the one area where I think the quirk system makes sense.

You actually brought up another area that ought to vary more between mechs: Heat management. Why should an AWS-8Q, built for boating energy weapons, have the same base heat capacity as a LCT-1V, which is a quarter of its size? Varying the base heat capacities and dissipation rates between mechs is another way to balance them out and differentiate them a little. An Awesome should have better heat characteristics and toughness than the Victor, which has superior speed, handling, and hitboxes. Heat capacity, generation, and dissipation should be displayed as stats, instead of the nebulous "heat management" stat that doesn't really convey much information to a new player.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 31 January 2015 - 11:11 PM.

[FupDup]

Kaeb Odellas, on 31 January 2015 - 11:09 PM, said:

You actually brought up another area that ought to vary more between mechs: Heat management. Why should an AWS-8Q, built for boating energy weapons, have the same base heat capacity as a LCT-1V, which is a quarter of its size? Varying the base heat capacities and dissipation rates between mechs is another way to balance them out and differentiate them a little. An Awesome should have better heat characteristics and toughness than the Victor, which has superior speed, handling, and hitboxes.

Technically the Awesome can already achieve higher heat capacity due to cramming in a lot more dubs...

It also has reduced weapon heat quirks that achieve a similar outcome of being able to sustain fire longer. Some generic dissipation and/or capacity boost quirks for it would be appropriate, although that may require a readjusting of weapon-specific heat reduction quirks.


EDIT: Having heat capacity and dissipation rates clearly displayed would definitely be useful to have. I'd even want to see the firepower bar broken up into Alpha Strike Damage, Maximum Potential Damage Per Second, and perhaps Sustained Damage Per Second.

Edited by FupDup, 31 January 2015 - 11:17 PM.

[Aiden Skye]

I think this is something the quirks should be expanded to. Internals, sensor suite, radar cross section etc.  too many damage quirks out there already. It would be great to see some quirks like.. For example the raven 3l. +15% sensor range. +40 degrees sensor width.
Also Fixing to information warfare part of MWO could also introduce a whole new world of quirks for scouting / spotting.

Edited by W A R K H A N, 01 February 2015 - 01:25 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Apart from the number of crit slots, I agree 100%.

I don't understand why PGI and many players pretend there aren't any other variables to be adjusted, other than quirks. I haven't seen PGI actually balance the basic specs since they nerfed the CPLT-K2 torso twist, I think.

It's so much easier to balance stuff like this too. Playing with extreme cooldown and heat bonus quirks is a very volatile way of balancing, and you leave yourself open to horrible unintended consequences as soon as you balance a single weapon. Imagine if they increased the ROF of the AC5 by 30%, for example. The DRG-1N would suddenly be able to cut buildings in half.

[Kaeb Odellas]

FupDup, on 31 January 2015 - 09:53 PM, said:

For internal critslots, that's a holdover from BT. It's weird but it doesn't seem to cause any balancing problems. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In some ways it might be a bit of an equalizer, in that it allows mechs with low tonnage for guns to often load up on more tech upgrades (i.e. lights using both Endo + FF).

An unintended consequence of toying with max/min critslots would be that some mechs would get to squeeze in more space-eating tech upgrades than their cohorts, or some mechs would have less space for upgrades as well. There was supposedly some special rules in a book called Maxtech that actually made critslots vary by weight class...light mechs not being able to use Endo Steel would suck.

You could always change Endo and FF to take up a certain percentage of crit slots instead of a flat 14. Currently, each mech has a total of 80 crit slots, right? Have those upgrades take up 17.5% of a mech's total crit slots instead (80* 0.175 = 14), so it'll scale appropriately if you add or remove slots.

I realize this is straying way off the old BT formula, but plenty of BT games have done this and turned out completely fine. Even MechAssault, the 3rd person arcade shooter for X-box, wasn't a bad game.