16 replies to this topic

[DeathlyEyes]

Rather than putting massive quirks on mechs, has PGI investigated slightly altering mech models and hard point locations to create better balanced mechs? As it stands now following these table top designs have got us such over powering mechs as the KDK-3 now and the DragonSlayer and the HGN733C back in their day (Mostly due to jump jets but also due to the fact the hard points were all on one side of the mech). These builds all had hard points in amazing spots. All it would have taken for the KDK-3 to be released in a more balanced state was to put the balistics more in the hip area to prevent the mech from being able to just barely peak over hills.

On the flip side of things we have silly mechs such as the Marauder, Black Knight and Warhammer which energy variants would be useless without large quirks because their weapon mounts are low. The Warhawk has been in a bad place ever since the ballistic quirks were removed.

Sure this wouldn't solve all the problems but it would be a step in the right direction. Improving hardpoint placement on some lesser used mechs could help them out in a big way without having to do +40% laser quirks on it. This could even be done without altering the model and just putting the arms in different resting positions, since well most mechs with actuators are supposed to be able to do this anyway.

EDIT:

People seem to think that by posting this that I believe this could mean ALL quirks could be removed. I am suggesting that this could reduce the need of heavy handed quirks.

Edited by DeathlyEyes, 22 July 2016 - 02:37 PM.

[FupDup]

Making the Vindicator and Mist Lynx viable by moving around hardpoints would require rebuilding those mechs entirely from scratch. They wouldn't even be recognizable anymore. :\

[DeathlyEyes]

The idea is that focusing on lore might not be the best thing for a PC game that at its heart is a shooter. That being said there is very little room for mechs at those tonnages to begin with.

[FupDup]

DeathlyEyes, on 22 July 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

The idea is that focusing on lore might not be the best thing for a PC game that at its heart is a shooter. That being said there is very little room for mechs at those tonnages to begin with.

Well, the BJ and Ice Fridge manage to be okay at 45 tons after Quarks are applied. All of our current 25 tonners suck, but the Lolcust IIC has a lot of potential.

[Elizander]

You do realize that the Vindicator 1X will be reduced to something equivalent to a 20 ton mech or worse if you remove all its quirks, right?

[DeathlyEyes]

Elizander, on 22 July 2016 - 02:10 PM, said:

You do realize that the Vindicator 1X will be reduced to something equivalent to a 20 ton mech or worse if you remove all its quirks, right?

I do not want PGI to remove all quirks. I am offering this as an additional tool to balance the game so quirks can be scaled back..... Never did I suggest that quirks be removed entirely.

[FupDup]

In all seriousness, there are a few things PGI could do regarding the "core game mechanics" that might reduce the level of quirks needed on some mechs. Notice that the key word is "reduce." Vindicators and such will always need quirks of some kind, sorry purists.

PGI will never do any of these things, but here is my list because I feel like it:

1. Sub-250 engines now mount all 10 of their required heatsinks on the inside. Their tonnages are increased accordingly. For example, an engine that used to have 6 internal sinks and 4 external will now have 10 internal sinks and 4 more tons of weight. The net effects of this include:

1a. Improved heat dissipation for all sub-250 mechs.

1b. Improved heat capacity for all sub-250 mechs.

1c. More critical slots for building with for all sub-250 mechs (most notably Inner Sphere mechs).

2. Add lightweight ballistic options like the Magshot, Light ACs, AP Gauss, and Protomech ACs. These help low-tonnage mechs with ballistic hardpoints to actually use those hardpoints without gimping themselves.

3. Add the Binary Laser Cannon, Heavy PPC, and Clan Heavy Lasers. These help mechs with limited energy hardpoints (e.g. Cicada 3C, Summoner Prime, etc.) to pack a worthwhile punch.

4. Some of the base agility stats like torso twist radius and torso pitch height can be increased without adding any text to a mech's quirk list.

5. Balancing Endo-Steel against STD Structure and Ferro will help Omnimechs that are stuck without Endo. Many people will say to just unlock these things, but that leads to two issues:

5a. You would have to completely remove Omnipod customization, or else Omnimechs would have no drawbacks for their Omnipod powers.

5b. Reduces the amount of "flavor" by making Omnis and Battlemechs identical. Less variety.

5c. Still doesn't change the fact that Endo-Steel is a mandatory tax on nearly all mechs.

6. A number of mechs could use higher engine caps. Enacting change #1 will significantly reduce the impact of low caps, but even then speed and agility are an issue.

7. Now that we mention it, agility really should be a fixed number for each tonnage interval rather than something that changes with engine size. A quirkless Stormcrow having the same agility as a quirkless Urbanmech is indefensible.

8. Big missile weapons like MRMs will help mechs with single missile hardpoints (excluding Grasshopper face missiles) make effective use of them.


But then I remember that none of these will ever happen, and then I has a sad.

Edited by FupDup, 22 July 2016 - 02:35 PM.

[MechaBattler]

If you want to move away from quirks. The game needs new mechanics. Something this community cannot agree on and some violently oppose.

Lights need a mechanic that is advantageous to them or that helps them provide support to others. Mechs with evenly mixed hard point types need something that tailors to them. And of course it can't have overly negative effect on other mechs because diapers will fill if people's favorite thing gets nerfed. But by that sentiment, we're not allowed to do anything.

[zudukai]

supposedly we are lined up to get c-HLL and a bunch of tech advancement in 2018 [3058], if PGI actually follows through with their timeline position, that might help, but that's a significant time to wait IMO.

as for the idea to move weapon mounts, i think this is a great idea that would definitely bring more mechs in line with balance. many mechs could be radically changed for the better simply by moving the weapon to it's highest mount first, but actually moving the arm/weapon higher would be an immense buff to the worst mechs in the game, as that is most often a mech's largest flaw.

another idea could be to have the arm or weapon lifted if the mech were to drop under a specific speed, or twist to a specific angle, perhaps even being more natural and fluid, essentially giving the mech a "ready" position or "defensive" mode. The best example i can think of is the dragon, most of the lore art has that arm mount lifted above the mech's center line, but MWO's implementation has the arm low and to the side at all times.


however all of the suggestions in this thread so far would involve many months of coding... That's something we know PGI needs to have scheduled for years in advance before they actually move forward on a subject.

however here is another bump in hopes that we can still make this good game, great.

[Mystere]

DeathlyEyes, on 22 July 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

The idea is that focusing on lore might not be the best thing for a PC game that at its heart is a shooter. That being said there is very little room for mechs at those tonnages to begin with.

It could be argued that MWO is in a very bad state precisely because PGI cherry-picked (and incorrectly at that) what parts of lore to follow.

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 22 July 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

It could be argued that MWO is in a very bad state precisely because PGI cherry-picked (and incorrectly at that) what parts of lore to follow.

It could also be argued that attempting to stick strictly and immovable to each and every last single facet, dot-for-dot, of the TT ruleset and 'LORE' would've doomed the game from the start.

[FupDup]

Mystere, on 22 July 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

It could be argued that MWO is in a very bad state precisely because PGI cherry-picked (and incorrectly at that) what parts of lore to follow.

Picking out every part of the lore wouldn't result in a magically perfect game. It just means that the game would share the same issues that TT had.

[Kael Posavatz]

Rote adherence to Lore is part of what got us into this mess.

PGI focused on retaining Table Top values of key equipment, such as weapon mass, bulk, heat generation, and (at least initially) damage. In doing so and to make weapons 'relevant' they ignored that in TT all weapons had the exact same rate of fire. Whether it was a small laser, or an AC-20, or an LRM-15, it had a maximum ROF of 1 per round. This in turn leads to small pulse laser-boating Firestarters, or laser-vomit Timbies.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 22 July 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

It could also be argued that attempting to stick strictly and immovable to each and every last single facet, dot-for-dot, of the TT ruleset and 'LORE' would've doomed the game from the start.

FupDup, on 22 July 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Picking out every part of the lore wouldn't result in a magically perfect game. It just means that the game would share the same issues that TT had.

The point is that PGI probably chose to take (and ignore) the wrong things.

Also, I do not think anyone here is demanding complete and total adherence to lore. So maybe people should stop using that argument. <shrugs>

[FupDup]

Mystere, on 22 July 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

The point is that PGI probably chose to take (and ignore) the wrong things.
Also, I do not think anyone here is demanding complete and total adherence to lore. So maybe people should stop using that argument. <shrugs>

That is a more valid point. They did ignore a few things that might have been better to not ignore, but for the most part they seem to have an issue with not ignoring things that really ought to be ignored.

[Accused]

DeathlyEyes, on 22 July 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

EDIT:

People seem to think that by posting this that I believe this could mean ALL quirks could be removed. I am suggesting that this could reduce the need of heavy handed quirks.

No no no stick to your guns quirks need to be nuked from orbit much like CW.

I mean quirks were supposed to add flavor to similar chassis and give a boost to the mechs that really needed it. Instead PGI treats it like a crack pipe.

[Metus regem]

FupDup, on 22 July 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

That is a more valid point. They did ignore a few things that might have been better to not ignore, but for the most part they seem to have an issue with not ignoring things that really ought to be ignored.

Yea, like actual heat effects that degrade your performance between 16% (5 heat in TT) and 101% heat... Not the best idea to ignore....

I'm in the camp that would like our weapons to do X damage over 5 seconds, as we do have double armour now, as that would let us have different versions of our weapons with different rates of fire with higher or lower damage per shot depending on the RoF.