54 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

IS 80-ton mechs are currently the victim of various poor overall decisions as well as issues with the mechs themselves.

Again we need unique skill trees for each weight class.

A 75 ton mech is a heavy. An 80 ton mech is an assault.

The skill trees need to make the difference between the two apparent


Assaults should be the unrivaled kings of the battlefield. Their complete lack of agility/speed should come with substantial bonuses to firepower/durability. They should get damage reduction skills, shake reduction skills, crit reduction skills, heat capacity/dissipation skills, etc... In general assaults should completely outclass heavies except in specific cases where the heavies specialization gives it an advantage.

Heavies should be less versatile/flexible than mediums, and more highly specialized, almost to a fault. Their skill tree should revolve around specializing in a specific role or using specific types of weapons while still retaining a decent amount of agility/speed. Heavies should be really good at one or two things but not so great at everything else.

Mediums should be the most versatile/flexible weight class. They should get a skill tree that lets them perform virtually any role. Mediums should also get the most module slots and have access to the most diverse range of equipment.

Lights should specialize in electronic warfare and harassment. Lights should not only be able to find enemies with various sensor-related skills but they should also be able to hide themselves from enemies as well. And they should be able to screw with enemy sensors by creating false radar contacts, disrupting IFF, cutting off enemy mechs from their sensor networks, etc... Lights should be able to harass enemy mechs on multiple levels.

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 09:17 AM.

[oldradagast]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

Again we need unique skill trees for each weight class.

An 75 ton mech is a heavy. An 80 ton mech is an assault.

The skill trees need to make the difference between the two apparent

Oh, I agree. A fine place to start would be to ditch that literally useless Pinpoint skill and replace it with something unique per weight class. I'm not sure what - a thread could be started on that idea - but it would be a good way to ease into this concept since they'd only need 4 different ideas to get started; and, it would get rid of that embarrassing skill that currently does nothing at all.

[Khobai]

Quote

Oh, I agree. A fine place to start would be to ditch that literally useless Pinpoint skill and replace it with something unique per weight class.

Theres plenty of room for weight class skills. Theres at least room for 7 new skills. 8 if you replace pinpoint with a weight class skill.

You can also combine some of the existing skills like acceleration/deceleration can be combined into one skill. Torso twist speed and torso twist range can be combined into one skill. That creates 2 more slots.

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 09:37 AM.

[Chagatay]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 January 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

Neither is the difference between 80 and 85. Or 85 and 90. See where that leads?

What they should do is have a different movement archetype for each individual tonnage rather than tiny, small, medium, etc categories. A 20 ton locust should be a little more agile than a commando which should be more nimble than a spider which should be more nimble than a firestarter....etc...etc...

This blurs the line enough that the non-max tonnage mechs in their respective classes are not at an inherent disadvantage.

Edited by Chagatay, 31 January 2016 - 09:45 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Chagatay, on 31 January 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

What they should do is have a different movement archetype for each individual tonnage rather than tiny, small, medium, etc categories. A 20 ton locust should be a little more agile than a commando which should be more nimble than a spider which should be more nimble than a firestarter....etc...etc...

This blurs the line enough that the non-max tonnage mechs in their respective classes are not at an inherent disadvantage.

I do think on top of that role should play a difference, too. Why would an LRM fire support Light be built with the same agility as a scout/brawler Light of the same tonnage? And I do see agility overlaps.... to me it makes sense for the Victor to be more agile than the Orion, because of what they are designed to do.

So set base agility curves by tonnage, but possibly with positive/negative modifiers based on role.

[Khobai]

Quote

What they should do is have a different movement archetype for each individual tonnage rather than tiny, small, medium, etc categories. A 20 ton locust should be a little more agile than a commando which should be more nimble than a spider which should be more nimble than a firestarter....etc...etc...

I dont understand what youre saying. The locust is more slightly more agile than the commando. Because it weighs less. Even if the locust and commando use the same exact engine rating, the locust is still more agile.

The locust is actually WAY more agile after you factor in quirks.

Size archetypes work fine when theyre used logically. But in many cases they arnt. The Jenner for example should not be the same size archetype as the Commando and Locust. Jenner should be small movement archetype rather than tiny. And the Executioner should be large movement archetype not huge because its supposed to be exceptionally mobile for a 95 tonner.

Although the huge archetype is a tad too punitive if you ask me. Assaults should not have to waddle up hills, struggle getting up stairs, or get stopped dead in their tracks by pebbles/pipes/roots.

Quote

to me it makes sense for the Victor to be more agile than the Orion, because of what they are designed to do.

The victors mobility comes from jumpjets though. Not from better ground agility. Even sarna says that.

orion should have better ground agility. victor should have unnerfed jumpjets. actually all jumpjets for heavies and especially assaults need to be unnerfed.

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 10:26 AM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

I dont understand what youre saying. The locust is more agile than the commando. Because it weighs less.

Even if the locust and commando use the same exact engine rating, the locust is still more agile.

The Commando's top speed is slightly higher than the Lolcust's, so in that case the Commie's base agility is in fact slightly higher. I dunno how quirks impact the final verdict, however...

A better comparison would be something like a Mist Lynx vs. the Arctic Cheetah or Adder vs. Raven, etc.

[Khobai]

Quote

The Commando's top speed is slightly higher than the Lolcust's, so in that case the Commie's base agility is in fact slightly higher. I dunno how quirks impact the final verdict, however...

yes if the commando slots a MUCH bigger engine (240 vs the locusts 190).

if they use the same engine size the locust is always more agile.


agility is determined by engine size divided by tonnage. so a mech that pays for a bigger engine gets more agility from paying extra tonnage for the bigger engine. its one of the many perks of spending more tonnage on a bigger engine.

if the commando spends more tonnage proportionally on its engine than the locust does, why shouldnt the commando reap benefits from it?

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 10:30 AM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

yes if the commando slots a MUCH bigger engine.

if they use the same engine size the locust is always more agile.

The "much larger" engine weight is canceled out by the Commie's increased tonnage pool.

What kind of idiot uses a 190 engine (Locust caps at 190) in a Commando, anyways?

Edited by FupDup, 31 January 2016 - 10:31 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

What kind of idiot uses a 190 engine (Locust caps at 190) in a Commando, anyways?

commando 2Ds commonly use 190 195 engines to fit all their missiles and ECM in.

EDIT: actually they use 195 because the 190-195 weigh the same.



Although if you believe mechs should reflect their canon roles, the commando should be speed capped much lower like the urbanmech is. Commandos are slow lights in tabletop. The whole idea of commandos having to go fast is silly.

PGI just has to come up with some way to make slow lights work. Which is why we need unique skill trees for each weight class.

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

commando 2Ds commonly use 190 engines to fit all their missiles and ECM in.

Then don't use that variant, the TDK is the best Commando anyways.

In terms of "proportionally more tonnage" on engine, the difference is actually pretty small.

Locust:
190 engine + 3 required DHS = 9 tons
9 ton engine / 20 ton mech = 45% of its total weight on engine

Commando:
240 engine + 1 required DHS = 12 tons
12 ton engine / 25 ton mech = 48% of its total weight on engine


So, here is what the Commie pays:
-3% more of its total weight on engine

Here is what the Commie GAINS:
+More structure
+More armor capacity
+Better cooling efficiency (more TruDubs)
+Slightly higher top speed
+Slightly higher base agility
+More critical slots to build with (also thanks to TruDubs)

All of that for just an extra 3% of its weight.

---

The moral of the story is that the Battletech construction system is designed to ensure that bigger is better with minimal tradeoffs if any until you get to a certain point.

For lights, 35 tonners are the golden master race for nearly all roles while 30 tonners are more efficient for extremely high top speeds. 25 and 20 tonners are just poop.

Edited by FupDup, 31 January 2016 - 10:47 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Then don't use that variant, the TDK is the best Commando anyways.

ill use whatever variant I want.

And I certainly wouldnt pay MC for a TDK.

every variant should be roughly equal anyway, there should not be a strictly best variant for any mech.

Quote

Here is what the Commie GAINS:
+More structure
+More armor capacity
+Better cooling efficiency (more TruDubs)
+Slightly higher top speed
+Slightly higher base agility

Except the Locust gets substantial quirks which you totally neglected.

Commandos are probably the worst mech in the game. Theyre even worse than Locusts.

Quote

The moral of the story is that the Battletech construction system is designed to ensure that bigger is better with minimal tradeoffs if any until you get to a certain point.

For lights, 35 tonners are the golden master race for nearly all roles while 30 tonners are more efficient for extremely high top speeds. 25 and 20 tonners are just poop.

I understand that. The game does absolutely nothing to compensate you for the tonnage difference. Thats the problem with not having tonnage matching in quickplay.

But ive also been pushing for a respawn gamemode similar to MWLL's gamemode where mechs cost resources appropriate to their tonange. So a commando would cost less than a jenner.

if you choose to pilot an undertonned mech you should get compensated for it somehow.

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 10:51 AM.

[oldradagast]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

Theres plenty of room for weight class skills. Theres at least room for 7 new skills. 8 if you replace pinpoint with a weight class skill.

You can also combine some of the existing skills like acceleration/deceleration can be combined into one skill. Torso twist speed and torso twist range can be combined into one skill. That creates 2 more slots.

Oh, I agree - please don't misunderstand me. I want a unique skill tree for each weight class AND a skill tree with some choices vs. "level everything." All I was getting at is that Pinpoint is currently useless and creating new skills per weight class would take some time and creativity. Replacing Pinpoint with 1 unique skill per weight class would be a good way to ease into new territory while also removing a skill that has literally done nothing for years now but burn up XP and confuse new players. But this would only be a starting point.

Edited by oldradagast, 31 January 2016 - 11:07 AM.

[Ultimax]

Here are the problems with all of our 80 tonners:

Awesome: Horrendous model, with atrocious hitboxes. Too wide for XL to be anything other than a liability. Mostly low, mediocre hardpoint locations.

Victor: Enormous model, huge STs. Poor hardpoint distribution for the current meta, unable to boat anything. JJs remain in hover-jets situation. Most mounts are in poor locations.

Zeus: Less than ideal hardpoint distribution, most mounts are in low/poor locations.

Gargoyle: Poor Omni-construction rules (engine too large, too many locked DHS if you don't want laser build, no endo), Enormous model, low/poor mount locations.


It has nothing to do with "heavies being too good" and entirely to do with the overall designs of these mechs - both physical model design and game mechanics.

[wanderer]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

Although if you believe mechs should reflect their canon roles, the commando should be speed capped much lower like the urbanmech is. Commandos are slow lights in tabletop. The whole idea of commandos having to go fast is silly.

Actually, Commandos were average in terms of ground speed for the day in the light class, matching up with the smaller Stinger, Wasp and quite a few others. 'Mechs like the Valkyrie and Panther were "slow lights", with the Urbanmech being considered the ultimate slowpoke even outside it's weight class.

Quote

PGI just has to come up with some way to make slow lights work. Which is why we need unique skill trees for each weight class.

The problem is that lights without high speed levels end up getting cored out easily- because alphas are big enough to obliterate that little protection/structure in a single shot. Perfect convergence all the time breaks the damage model, and slower 'Mechs suffer more than faster ones by weight in the process.