2
BUT(you knew this was coming, but hear me out here)
I think you guys missed a step in your approach.
So, lets take a look, quickly(I will try to keep this concise so it isn't a text wall of a post for you to read) at how the current strategy is going in.
Lets pick a chassis, we will say Jener like you used. I like the idea you have about using something besides weapons to differentiate between variants. So you used mobility, sensor stuff, structure buffs, that type of thing, to differentiate.
Now lets pick, the Atlas. You used mobility, sensor stuff, structure buffs, that type of thing to differentiate.
Here is where i am trying to inject a line of thought into your plan.
It feels like you are trying to create roles for each variant within each chassis. That's fine, in fact good even.
It also feels like you are taking a similar approach to all the chassis, overall. Sure there are some this and that's, but it's like you picked a variant to be "the tough one" or "bralwer and one to be "the info mech" and filled in in between. Now, i am not bashing that outright, it DOES have potential, and does for sure use something besides weapons to differentiate.
BUT(and here is that line of thought)
I think, really, the idea of a role needs to FIRST be applied to weight class, and THEN within weight class/chassis/variant. I want to explain this a bit-
First, I think having different info/mobility/etc strengths for each variant within a chassis is fine to differentiate them. However, I also think that those ideas need to be bracketed by the scope
of the role the particular weight class should fit into, and so far, I don;t feel like you guys have done this part. Let's dig into that aspect first, and see how it would work with your good ideas on info warfare etc.
Role warfare has obviously been something the players have griped about for like, forever lol. What you have as a system going in, man, this is key to allowing it for sure. but I think that you need to look at it, an info strong jenner, well, that isn;t going to play out in game anywhere near what an info strong Atlas would. thats where this idea of weight class role first comes into pay.
Lights: people want to scout, people want to be super fast flanker squads, interceptors, strikers.
Assaults; basically none of the above, EXCEPT for some really, really obscure things like the idea of the Pretty Baby for example. In general, no one sees an assault as a fast flanker or scout. (Steiner jokes aside)
See, this is where the ideas about info warfare and mobility and such, they need to be bracketed inside the idea of a role for each weight class.
Up untl now(well potentially) the role has been: find enemy, shoot enemy, for every mech ever. the only thing different was range of engagment and speed/position of doing so. The info stuff you are adding, and the idea of how to use quirks now, would allow you guys to make a light much stronger at info then an assault for instance. AND THAT IS PERFECT. I mean, it's exactly what the weight classes need to set them apart. Let's look at how that might pan out....
Let's take that Jenner vs Atlas again-
We CAN have a variant in each be more geared towards skirmishing, and one more geared towards fringe fighting etc. BUT, we should be looking at it in a differnt angle. The jenners, well, overall, they should ALL be stronger at info then the Atlas, using tools fit for each weight class. For instance
target info speed, range, deterioration as you have
Overall sensor range
Counter ECM range buffs to BAP
BAP buffs
ECM range buffs
Missile lock on times(not sure if you guys have this specifically yet or not)
NARC durations and range
TAG range
NARC and TAG potency quirks
UAV quirks
This is a list of some of the things you could use as a package for info war. now, a Jenner vs an Atlas, keeping in mind a role warfare PER WEIGHT CLASS as a bracketing design-
Lets take "info Jenner" vs "Skirmish Jenner" as a start-
Info Jenner, this is going to be the scout, the LRM spotter, the counter ECM target spotting long range thorn in the enemy side. Sensor range buffs, NARC duration and range increases, TAG increased range and benefit quirks, fast target info gather, slow target loss, built in radar Deprivation(or a modifier of similar effect). Normal speed and mobility, *less structure quirks(I say less, because IMO you can't ignore chassis limitations. Jenner CT for example is weak across the board and ALL variants should have a little somthing for CT to buff it some for general purpose chassis balancing within weight class)
Skirmish jenner, well, Skirmish Jenner isn't going to get MOST of that. maybe some low end BAP buffs for counter ECM, and some of that "radar dep." style quirking to be elusive in the fuzzball. Skirmish Jenner won;t need all the sensor and stuff. Skirmish Jenner, this is where you give it some extra Structure, to withstand the extra exposure time of being in the fuzzball. You give it good close range sensor activity, but BAD long range. Maybe even some armor.
Now that we have a baseline for differentiation betwen variants, lets compare info Jenner to an Info Atlas
Info Atlas, well, it will never do the same things as info Jenner. it just can;t. no matter what quirks you give it, info Atlas will never be a TAG/NARC lrm spotter, scout, etc. it just isn't logical to think a 100 ton would be able to perform those things really, it doesn;thave the speed for starters to position.
So what would info Atlas bring, and how would it balance in with "Skirmish" Atlas?
First off, this is where the idea of weight class role comes in. For light mechs, using INFO WARFARE as a huge balance in your diamond fits. it really, really does, perfectly, and there are tons of tools to use for it. On a 100 tons assault....ehhh... the basic function of the mech dictates info war can be a useful tool, but not a defining function. Goin back through Battletech, mechwarrior games, etc, Atlas has always relied on his lance to locate enemy, and provide him with a means of positioning(time, distractions, etc) to utilize Atlas strengths as powerhouse assault. Now, that isn;t to say we can;t allow a DDC to be much sneakier and useful for info...within it's intended use.
A DDC Atlas, well, NARC duration isn;t going to be it's strong point in game ply. Things like a powerful "radar dep." style quirk, making LRM's take forever to lock, speed increase quirks- these type of things make the DDC into the Atlas that can position best, and fastest, out of the variants. It will be the Atlas that can move across the open space the most safely. Give it an ECM coverage area buff, now info Atlas can work as a shield for his brawling team mates without being a bullet sponge. Things like overall sensor range aren;t a good fit for Atlas compared to Jenner, because Atlas will ultimatly end up in the forefront of the battle regardless. So, giving info Atlas strong close range type info things and info things to help it position are key. It will though, STILL end up in the brawl taking a beating. It will still need some structure help, it still needs to be able to fight in the front, it just doesnt need to be able to tank for a push.
Compare that to the Atlas D. Atlas D is a blind powerhouse ubertank. it is most vulnerable to crossing open area. it has the hardest time getting it's own target info. it has the least "sensor protections"(like minimal radar dep. style quirks). It relies themost on it;s team to get into position without discovery and effectively apply its firepower. it can withstand the most punishment instead. Where DDC gets info and team helping ability, D gets agility.
As an aside, besides info and skirmish variants, a type of flanker could be put in also. It would be a blend of info and skirmisher, but with the tools from both picked out specifically to make it work. So, sensor buffs to allow it to get better field awareness then the skirmisher(not as good as info and some structure to fight. BUT, things like +top speed, hill climb, fall dmg, JJ mobility, etc. Flanker variant would be king of getting around the field(not detection wise, just overall movment) to make up for less then skirmish toughness and less sensor in general then info. WITHIN THE WEIGHT CLASS ROLE. For instance Atlas S gets a mdiocre sensor package, mediocre structure(more then DDC, not at D) and a solid hill climb buff, agility buffs, speed buffs(just off the top of my head)
To finalize, I would list out some weight class "roles"-
Lights: scouting, super fast flanker, interceptors, ankle biting skirmisher, striker, sniper
medium: Some scouting(Cicada for instance) flanker, fringe skirmisher, striker, sniper
Heavy: Flanker, skirmisher, sniper,tank
Assault: Skirmisher/tank(Atlas D), bastion(Atlas DDC), close range flanker(Gargoyle)
This is the type of differentiation needed between weight classes BEFORE your good ideas on info warfare get applied to each chassis/variant.
Use more tools!! Maybe I will start a different thread about kinds of quirks for different roles, but the list I put above for info style should give you an idea. The more tools you use, the more flexible you can be with the quirk system, and easier you can apply the idea of weight class role into the overall system.
Sorry this got long, but it's a concept that required some explaination on how it would fit with your goals moving forward.
Edited by Eldagore, 12 September 2015 - 08:43 AM.
Which also takes a bit of unbalancing danger from the damned 2ERPPC 2 Gauss Dires.
making people want to play these roles is not currently baked into the game. No amounts of quirkening are going to make this difference. Putting the focus on mechs is missing the picture. That's the trap of the paradigm. What we need to do is convince Paul / Russ / whoever-pulls-the-strings / white knights that simply balancing mechs will NEVER create a role warfare need, no matter how many times and how impossibly they try to shoehorn it in.
