1
It's not the only issue facing the Dragon, though, and the Dragon 1N illustrates a serious problem rather well- a number of 'mechs are getting quirked in ways that don't make terribly much sense. While they wind up effective, it's often only a single variant that winds up with perceived value. The Dragon is not the only 'mech to find itself in this position, but it's certainly one of the most obvious.
The Goal Here
I'd like to say I have time to point at and discuss absolutely every 'mech that I think is out of line in a way that's bad for game balance- or rather, bad for deliberate, measured game imbalance. But I can't. So instead, I'm going to take the time to point out some highly-visible outliers and highlight what seems to have gone wrong with adjusting them to ensure they're viable and left them either overperforming or underperforming significantly enough to matter.
When I mention 'game imbalance', I'm talking about a concept that I've been aware of for some time but had no name for. Thanks to the folks at Extra Credits, I can now refer to it as 'game imbalance' and not be misunderstood, and further, we have a name for the goal, 'perfect imbalance'.
At any rate, this thread is specifically about the Dragon- what makes the 1N Dragon so ridiculous, and the 5N and 1C comparatively useless (although not useless in an absolute sense).
Still Just A Fish
I'll start with a listing/analysis of the problems with the Dragon sans quirks, issues that it has which the quirks assigned to the chassis should have been used to either mitigate or create workarounds for.
- Shape and Size- the Dragon's height is comparable to that of the Cataphract, Catapult K2, Jagermech, and Thunderbolt. That itself is not an issue. However, its projecting 'nose' creates a huge increase in torso profile when viewed from any angle other than straight forwards or straight back. While the torso hitboxes currently are somewhat more favorable than they used to be, the vast majority of that volvo hood is still center torso, making it easy to core the Dragon from the side, and the rear side torso panels are exceptionally slim. This means that the Dragon takes a lot of Center Torso damage, not just in proportion to its Side Torso damage, but even generally speaking, as torso twisting can often bring the Center Torso into the line of fire of shots that would otherwise have missed. On the upside, this means that an XL engine is rarely more risk than a Standard engine, since the Dragon tends to fall quickly either way.
- Weapon Limitations- the Dragon has six weapon hardpoints each in its non-hero configurations. Only six, and never more than that. Compared to the Quickdraw (one variant with seven, others with six), Catapult (six), and Cataphract (one variant with seven thanks to a head hardpoint, others with six), this isn't too bad- until the placement of those hardpoints is taken into consideration.
- Hardpoint Placement and Type- Dragon arms are large, low, and wideslung, and at least half of the hardpoints are mounted there, which is inconvenient for any Dragon with a low top speed. What's more, one or two of those hardpoints- specifically the missile hardpoints- are always mounted in the heavily critical-slot restricted center torso. That's a relatively modest issue, but it is noteworthy and hindering. Worse is that two of the dragons are effectively based on being reliant around right-arm ballistics (of the three variants one has only a single ballistic hardpoint and can be used with four energy weapons), which is a relatively poor match on a sixty-ton 'mech, particularly one that needs agility to offset its large target surface.
The main weakness of the Dragon in its base state returns, time and again, to the giant nose sticking out the front. The heavy reliance on arm-mounted weapons can be a slight hindrance, the weight of ballistics worth mounting in smaller numbers is a consideration, but the primary issue is and always has been how easily the core of the 'mech is obliterated thanks to its hitboxes and protrusion out the front.
Given all of that, what is warranted across the Dragon chassis in terms of quirks seems pretty straightforwards.
- Agility Boosts- Torso Twist, Turn Rate, Acceleration/Deceleration, Hill Climb, and possibly Fall Damage Reduction. Classically, the Dragon is a considerably mobile Heavy 'mech, and improving its overall mobility and agility would allow players to, through their own actions, mitigate the dangers posed by the giant center torso. It would also provide additional rewards in the form of Medium-class resultant agility when the 'mech runs an especially large XL engine, which it's prone to doing anyways just to be able to get out of situations where the nose is at risk.
- Durability Boosts- That ballistic arm is super important to the base builds of the Dragon, and the volvo hood takes a lot of fire. Improving the Dragon's ability to sustain damage in those two vital locations can also go a long way to mitigate the otherwise damage-magnetic property of the 'mech. Push the Center Torso far enough and you could even justify mounting a (gasp) Standard engine on the variant with only a single Ballistic hardpoint.
- Something About Missiles- One or two of the Dragon's hardpoints are missile hardpoints in the Center Torso. This makes them difficult to use efficiently. The majority of Dragon pilots for quite some time now have left missiles off of their 'mechs entirely, for just this reason. Something to make the missiles worth taking seems in order. Given that the hardpoints are better for SRMs, but typically mount LRMs, something to do with missile travel speed seems best- benefit both weapon types.
Blanket Quirks
- Torso Turn Rate (Yaw) (3/3- Excellent. Seems we're in agreement here.)
- Additional Structure (CT) (3/3! Excellent. Amount seems a bit high, but meh.)
- Additional Armor (CT) (Nope, wasn't done. Not sure why.)
- Additional Structure (RA) (3/3! Excellent.)
- Acceleration Rate (All Speeds) (Nope.....?)
- Deceleration Rate (All Speeds) (Nope....?)
- Turn Rate (All Speeds) (Nope....?)
- Missile Velocity (General) (Nope....?)
Dragon 1C-
- Ballistic Cooldown (General and AC/2) (Halfway there- this is a little strong, but okay, with only one ballistic weapon it likely won't push things too far... right?)
- Energy Cooldown (General and Medium Laser) (Halfway there- bit strong on the quirk though, innit?) OR Laser Duration (General and Medium Laser) (Energy hardpoint inflation Dragon, why do you not like the Medium Lasers you come with? Half the path is walked on duration, but the quirk is very strong...still, including these without a heat quirk is asking for trouble....)
- Energy Range (General and Medium Laser) (Halfway there- again, a bit strong for a single general quirk, though)
- Energy Heat Generation (General and Medium Laser) (This /is/ the energy hardpoint inflation Dragon, after all, there should really be some synergising there.)
- Missile Range (General) (Nnnnope. This is the AC/2 Dragon, why is it not specialised towards operating at AC/2 ranges?)
- Ballistic Cooldown (General and AC/5) (OH GODS WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN)
- Energy Cooldown (General and Medium Laser) (Still only half-and-strong....)
- Energy Range (General and Medium Laser) (Half-and-strong again.)
- Missile Range (General)(Nope. I don't understand, this is the ONE Dragon with multiple missile hardpoints.)
- Missile Cooldown (General)(I mean, really, the one thing it can do that no other dragon can do is mount multiple small missile racks, and what gets emphasized out the wazoo? The single AC/5 with the inflated hardpoints, and no emphasis at all on the inflated missile hardpoints?)
- Ballistic Cooldown (General and UAC/5) (Okay, got this. A touch on the strong side, but caddying multiple UACs is a bit rougher than multiple plain ACs. Also impossible on this Dragon, so... uh.....)
- Missile Cooldown (General and LRMs) (Missing entirely. No missile quirks here at all. Why does this thing have 1/6 of its hardpoints missiles and nothing at all to benefit them?)
- Ballistic Range (General and UAC/5) (The only Ballistic quirk that applies at all to Machine Guns but can also do beneficial things for an Autocannon. Half-and-strong here.)
Speaking from a game balance perspective, there's a fair bit here that simply doesn't make sense in terms of what was actually done by PGI, so I'll try and go over things from the general to the specific.
Point One: Lack of Missile Support.
With only six hardpoints, even one Missile hardpoint is a significant portion of a Dragon's potential loadout. One of the Dragons has a third of its weapons here. Yet, very little was done to try and make this hardpoint viable. This doesn't make much sense, given that PGI could easily observe the general lack of missile weapons on Dragons, and the near-complete lack of serious use of missile weapons on them.
I myself have one Dragon with an LRM-10 because I'm stubborn like that, and another with a pair of SRM-4s because I happen to really like the SRM-4, but I can't offhand recall seeing anyone in a customized Dragon (on those rare occasions when I see one that isn't purely an AC/5 caddy) other than myself actually using the missile hardpoints. Even the Champion Dragon doesn't bother, which is pretty telling.
General usability of missiles could easily be improved without overpowering the chassis, thanks to the limited critical hit slots available in the Center Torso, so balance-wise, there's no reason not to try tweaking this with quirks.
Point Two: Structure is Less Valuable Than Armor.
All Dragons got a Center Torso structure boost, but somehow the giant Volvo hood that produces so much extra surface area can't mount extra armor at all. What's more, making the improvement to that component be structure increases the likelihood of a Dragon losing valuable heat sinks before it is destroyed, resulting in a decline in capability. It also results in a Dragon that has extended exposure to machine guns from lighter 'mechs, who already have an exceptionally easy time targeting that giant Center Torso nose.
Why was this a pure structure boost? And why was the structure increase so big? The hood is large, sure, but surely it's not a full third again as large in volume as a Quickdraw's center torso (not counting supposed armor volume)?
Point Three: Lack of Mobility
Dragon torso twist got boosted, but that's not going to help something with its trapezoidal shape avoid damage, only spread it. Where's the rest of the agility suite? The Dragon was always an agile 'mech for a Heavy despite lacking jump jets (and the eventual Grand Dragon upgrade even moreso), and the raw size of the torso projection seems to hint that it was made an easy target to offset such an advantage.... but it doesn't actually have that advantage to a degree that warrants its degree of easy-target-ness.
Admittedly, the durability boost to the Center Torso reduces the need for this significantly because it is so big (24 points? Really? That's about a 30% increase in internal structure...), but the Dragon still isn't quite spry enough to offset its giant nose begging to be bloodied.
Point Four: Severely Uneven Weapon Quirking
Holy cow, +50% AC/5 fire rate. What the scrap, PGI. That's... not warranted. Not only did you just pigeonhole the 1N Dragon into a pair of AC/5s more or less no matter what, but you've also given the thing vastly superior offensive power to the other two Dragons (and to most 'mechs in general, assuming the pilot thinks to take two AC/5s). Nothing that the other two have compares in attack utility.
The 1C's fat stack of energy weapon quirks are badly hindered by the fact that it doesn't get anything to offset the massive heat generation that can easily result, so that's a no-go on comparative value. The 5N is a little closer, with the 25% total quirking to UAC/5 fire rate.... but hang on a minute here. The Dragon that hauls around the heavier autocannon and can only carry one of it has a lower degree of improvement? A jam rate reduction from 15% to 10.5% is absolutely not comparable to an additional 25% off of cooldown and the option to carry a second of the same cannon.
Honestly, I can't figure out how anyone who understands numbers, nevermind game balance, thought pushing the AC/5 rate quirk on the Dragon 1N that far was fair and even application in comparison to the other two dragons. Just to make this worse, the 1N Dragon is the one dragon with two center torso hardpoints, and it gets no consideration for that whatsoever. Shouldn't the most ballistic-inclined quirks go on, oh, I don't know, the Dragon with the most ballistic hardpoints?
Point Five: Complete the Star
....I don't actually have a fifth point, I just wanted to make an abysmal pun.
In Which I Conclude
Let me explain- no, that will take too long.
Let me sum up.
The AC/5 quirks on the Dragon 1N are excessive, allowing it to fire effectively an AC/10 at AC/5 range with AC/2 fire rate at an easily covered added cost. The weapon quirks on the Dragons in general don't make much sense for the hardpoints provided for the most part. The overall quirks on the Dragons as a whole are slanted too heavily towards firepower and not enough towards directly making up for the chassis shape. Nothing of relative value was done about the missile hardpoints despite this, which doesn't even make any sense. The Dragon 1C has the wrong mix of quirks to take advantage of its energy-heavy hardpoint load.
So all we have to do is get in, stop the wedding, kidnap the Princess, make our escape- after I kill Count Rugen.
-QKD-CR0
Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 05 May 2015 - 12:11 PM.
