8 replies to this topic

[SkaerKrow]

I see a lot of gnashing of teeth around here about weapon quirks, and being that I am still a seal, I take it on faith that there is something wrong with the current quirk landscape. I have also seen a couple of topics where people express displeasure with the breadth of customization that you have with your mech (such as: this machine gun is now a Gauss Rifle).

Instead of shooting most of the quirks into space, and locking weapons into hardpoints, what if some or all of a mech's quirks only applied to its stock configuration? For example, yes you could swap out that machine gun for a Gauss Rifle, but you forfeit the chassis' ballistic velocity quirk by doing so (along with any others that it might have). The rationale behind this being that the chassis was designed around the factory configuration, so it operates best with that set-up.

Just a thought. If it's a bad idea then feel free to shoot it full of holes.

[Yosharian]

THe problem is that this causes as many problems as it solves. Creating systems which benefit from stock configs, while limiting the power of absurd configs and providing flavour, also limits creativity and stifles the creation of new and interesting builds, which is essentially what keeps the game 'fun' for a lot of people (myself included).

[Wolfways]

Meh, just remove the mechlab

[Davegt27]

Quote

I see a lot of gnashing of teeth around here about weapon quirks, and being that I am still a seal, I take it on faith that there is something wrong with the current quirk landscape. I have also seen a couple of topics where people express displeasure with the breadth of customization that you have with your mech (such as: this machine gun is now a Gauss Rifle).

Instead of shooting most of the quirks into space, and locking weapons into hardpoints, what if some or all of a mech's quirks only applied to its stock configuration? For example, yes you could swap out that machine gun for a Gauss Rifle, but you forfeit the chassis' ballistic velocity quirk by doing so (along with any others that it might have). The rationale behind this being that the chassis was designed around the factory configuration, so it operates best with that set-up.

Just a thought. If it's a bad idea then feel free to shoot it full of holes.

Not bad but

It’s an assumption that mechs are loaded out in the best configuration

Also one of the selling points of the game is the Mech customization that is the ability for you to change the Mech to your play style

The constant crying about this and that is partially human nature and partially reflects the computer control over the game

PGI nerfs and buffs stuff on whim and day to day
One day you wreck face the next you can’t do 200 damage

[Queen of England]

There are a few problems.

1) It will end up reducing the number of competitively useful 'mechs. There are actually a number of 'mechs with stock configurations that are pretty good for MWO - the Stormcrow Prime is an example. A shove towards stock just ends up making those small number of 'mechs much better than 'mechs with terrible stock configurations.

2) Its not very BattleTech. We actually have a few canon customized 'mechs in the game, like the Bounty Hunter II (a custom Marauder) the "Top Dog" (which is actually the "Tallman" custom, a modified Thunderbolt 5S), or the Yen-Lo-Wang (a custom Centurion). None are particularly close to their stock configurations, and they don't suffer penalties (in BattleTech) for being so heavily modified. In fact, if you compare the "Top Dog", you'll find that MWO's construction rules are quite a bit more restrictive that what was actually done in lore - the "Top Dog" mounts 4 medium lasers in the right torso, in MWO, you can't put any energy weapons in the right torso of a TDR-5S.

Edited by Queen of England, 07 February 2016 - 07:04 AM.

[zagibu]

They should add quirk slots and allow free configuration of quirks. Bad mechs have more quirk slots, good mechs have less.

Or they could completely do away with quirks and improve the module system to solve the same problem.

[Scyther]

Zagibu, those ideas are intriguing - not sure how they would work out in practice but they sound at least worth a look.

OP, the 'stock config' bonus idea gets mentioned often. It has some pros and (IMHO) many more cons. One issue that isn't typically mentioned is the server load that would be imposed by checking a mechs full config against it's 'stock' config for every mech entering battle.

Edited by MadBadger, 07 February 2016 - 09:09 AM.

[Quaamik]

I like the idea of quirk and module setups. The modules were supposed to add flavor, but they didn’t work well. Personally, I think it is because they gave too little for the rather large investment. ESPECIALLY compared to quirks.

Compare the IS MPL range module to quirks. For quite a bit of experience (something around 2000 gxp, I don’t have the figures in front of me), and 3 million c-bills, you get a 10% range boost. Most mechs quirked for energy already have a 10% range boost, and that’s on ALL lasers and sometimes PPCs as well. A mech with those quirks costs 9 – 12 million c-bills, only three times the module alone. The finances don’t make sense, especially since it costs 2-1/2 to 4-1/2 hrs of game time to earn that 3 million c-bills, and 7-1/2 to 13-1/2 hrs to buy the whole mech …..

Expand the modules and significantly cheapen them, using them to replace quirks. Add more module slots to underperforming mechs. For truly OP mechs give them few module slots and (for the most extreme) slight negative quirks that could be balanced out with modules. For really and truly awful “as is” mechs (such as the Awesome”) include some modules installed as stock (possibly as fixed equipment). Or, (if the mech is truly that poor) give it a slot that boosts any module you install in it by a certain amount. That lets you bump hard point deprived mechs by giving them weapon module slots that boost whatever you put in them.

As for expanding and cheapening the modules:
-Add modules that cover entire families of weapons that are more expensive than ones for single weapons.
-Add modules (all tied to weapons and weapon families) for reduction of heat generation, reduction in cycle time, projectile velocity, heat sink capacity, heat sink efficiency, armor buffs, structure buffs, AMS accuracy, mech speed, torso twist speed, torso twist range, ECM range, and anything else that is currently quirked (or you think could be).
-Make the modules additive. If you put two modules that both bump a MPLs range by 10%, you get a 20% bump in range. Of course, allow multiples of the same module on the same mech.
-Cheapen the price (in both gxp and c-bills) for modules.
-Make the price per “level up” of a module.
----For example for a range module on a weapon, instead of spending 3 million c-bills to buy it, which works at whatever level you’ve upgraded it to with gxp you need both to go up a level:
-------Level 1: 0 gxp + 25,000 c-bills (2% range increase)
-------Level 2 upgrade: 25 gxp + 50,000 c-bills (4% range increase)
-------Level 3 upgrade: 50 gxp + 100,000 c-bills (6% range increase)
-------Level 4 upgrade: 75 gxp + 150,000 c-bills (8% range increase)
-------Level 5 upgrade: 100 gxp + 200,000 c-bills (10% range increase)
So a level 5 range increase on a given weapon would cost 250 gxp and 525,000 c-bills total, but could be invested in a little at a time to “try it” and see if it benefitted your play style.
But, and this is a kicker, you have to upgrade each module separately. That means if you install modules on three mechs, when you upgrade one of them to level 5, the other two are still at level 1 till you upgrade them. For those of us with big mech stables, we may find ourselves buying LOTs of them. But a new player, with only a few mechs, can upgrade theirs cheaply and stay competitive.

If a given weapon is performing poorly across the board, you can fiddle with the modules bonuses rather than the weapon stats to fine tune it.

As a benefit, you will see more variety of mechs on the field, as people play what they want and use modules to make them competitive, instead of building only the mechs with the best quirks.

[zagibu]

The trade off with configurable quirks or an expanded module system like this is that you lose the characterization/identification of the variants. But 1) I'm not sure how well known/understood this characterization actually is for regular players (of course, the hardcore fans know every difference down to the very last bolt), outside of a few well known models (Banshee 3E/3M, Thunderbolt 5SS/9S/9SE, etc.) and 2) it's a price I'm willing to pay if it allows to improve the competitiveness of underdog mechs.
Because not all mechs actually have enough difference in their variants that allows such a characterization in the first place, and then their variants get locked into meh quirks that neither give them a distinct character nor actually help them to become competitive.

Maybe both could be combined? Leave the characteristic mechs with fixed quirks that underline their intended role and only give them few dynamic quirks/module slots (if any) and remove the fixed quirks on mechs with generic "meh" variants and give them lots of dynamic quirks/module slots instead?

The reason for this is that I would rather see an AC/20 TBT on the field than no TBT at all. I know that many lore fans will disagree with this sentiment, but for them, a bad game with strict lore would be better than a good game with no/loose lore. So they don't count.