71 replies to this topic

[cazidin]

Greetings MechWarriors. Today I have a simple idea. What if sticking to the stock/lore loadout (or within a predefined stock+ loadout) granted a C-bill bonus similar to Hero Mechs? Would that make these builds more appealing or at least, compensate for the amount you would've otherwise gained from a meta build?

[Requiemking]

cazidin, on 22 May 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors. Today I have a simple idea. What if sticking to the stock/lore loadout (or within a predefined stock+ loadout) granted a C-bill bonus similar to Hero Mechs? Would that make these builds more appealing or at least, compensate for the amount you would've otherwise gained from a meta build?

Probably not, as there is a "Meta" when it comes to Lore builds as well.

[Jingseng]

I'd imagine the incentive to running a lore build is the quiet, self satisfied, smugness that you are running a lore build and none of the other people are playing 'real BT'.

That's a guess though, I don't do lore builds-only =p

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Requiemking, on 22 May 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

Probably not, as there is a "Meta" when it comes to Lore builds as well.

This. All the ideas which are directed towards encouraging lore builds- cbill/xp incentives, sized hardpoints, etc.- stand and fall on the fact that some lore builds already hve all the right features to make them "meta" in a videogame, while others did not. We don't even need to speculate about this, because we've seen it in action in previous MW titles. Any attempt to make lore builds more viable on a per-chassis basis than optimized custom builds will run afoul of this fact.

Players will gravitiate towards 'Mechs which have everything they need to succeed from stock, reap the benefits, and walk away with a fat wallet. Anyone who doesn't do that will be penalized. The meta for MWO will become narrower, not wider.

Edited by WrathOfDeadguy, 22 May 2017 - 07:04 PM.

[El Bandito]

Requiemking, on 22 May 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

Probably not, as there is a "Meta" when it comes to Lore builds as well.

There is meta in every iteration of balancing. However, in this case, we will have lore friendly meta, which is far more acceptable in my eyes, than current meta.

I personally would suggest hardpoint based quirks to incentivise lore friendly builds. Such as 50% PPC velocity on Warhammer's arm energy points only.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 May 2017 - 07:10 PM.

[VanillaG]

Jingseng, on 22 May 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

I'd imagine the incentive to running a lore build is the quiet, self satisfied, smugness that you are running a lore build and none of the other people are playing 'real BT'.

That's a guess though, I don't do lore builds-only =p

So basically they are hipsters.

[Jingseng]

I don't think it is proper to incentivize lore builds in any way. It runs directly counter to the concept of build diversity, not to mention freedom of play/choice. If it wasn't the very first thing most players thought of the first time they played BT in any form, wanting to make something that was THEIRS was certainly in the first three things. I think incentivizing or restricting to lore builds runs counter to that aspect of the game - there would be no mech creation rules included in the very outset if that were not a core part of the game experience.

That said, limiting to lore builds may be the only way to achieve so-called balance and thus appropriate for FP. Generally I would be against it, but it would be acceptable i think.

[Coolant]

That's a good idea OP

[Vellron2005]

cazidin, on 22 May 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

Greetings MechWarriors. Today I have a simple idea. What if sticking to the stock/lore loadout (or within a predefined stock+ loadout) granted a C-bill bonus similar to Hero Mechs? Would that make these builds more appealing or at least, compensate for the amount you would've otherwise gained from a meta build?

OK, I'm a lore buff.. I'll bite..

But already I can see a flaw in this line of reasoning.. What would be the LORE explanation for taking certain, usually non-optimal builds into combat, and getting paid extra for this?

I see no explanation for this.. nor honor, nor tactical advantage, nor any other reason I can think off.. No great house would pay extra for sub-par performance.. No Clan would encourage being less than the best you can be..

So your argument is not very LORE..

[Logan812]

I don't restrict my builds based on what's lore-friendly or not (except for something like MekHQ/MegaMek,) but I do like to restrict the chassis themselves to something a particular faction would use just for the extra immersion. It's not necessary, but it keeps things interesting imo.

For example, I won't use a Mauler because I'm loyal to the Free Worlds League. However, if I was in the Draconis Combine then the Mauler is a must-have mech if I wanted an assault.

Edited by Logan812, 24 May 2017 - 03:23 AM.

[Scyther]

I am pro-'lore friendly', because I think the story and background of BattleTech gives it much of its' flavor and interest. That's what built the BattleTech/MechWarrior franchise and created the fans. PGI seems to think that 'mech combat sim' is the sole important feature (it's interesting yes, it doesn't quite carry the game for me though).

@Vellron2005: You could cobble up a 'lore' reason of saying 'stock mech, don't need to pay for mech changes, or techs to tweak the add-ons back into place after battle, etc, = more net pay after battle'. Flimsy but hey lots of BT is flimsy.

That said, I don't agree with this idea. Basically it would end up that people would buy the 2-3 'stock' mechs that are effective as is and use those to grind C-bills, basically 'poor man's Hero mechs'. That, or people would convince themselves that taking poorly built stock mechs into battle was 'PGI encouraged' and gimp their teams by leaving mechs stock. Also, the skill tree effectively 'un-stocks' any mech right there.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Vellron2005, on 24 May 2017 - 12:40 AM, said:

OK, I'm a lore buff.. I'll bite..

But already I can see a flaw in this line of reasoning.. What would be the LORE explanation for taking certain, usually non-optimal builds into combat, and getting paid extra for this?

I see no explanation for this.. nor honor, nor tactical advantage, nor any other reason I can think off.. No great house would pay extra for sub-par performance.. No Clan would encourage being less than the best you can be..

So your argument is not very LORE..

The lore explanation has always been that mech customization is rare and very expensive to do. The mech building rules, as originally envisioned, were to build new mech designs and not customize existing mech designs. This applies only to Battlemechs and not Omnis.

[CDLord HHGD]

Hehehehehehe......










<-----------------------------------------

Edited by CDLord HHGD, 24 May 2017 - 04:15 AM.

[Metus regem]

I suggested a while back, that rather than offer a game effecting reward, offer a cosmetic one. As in if you run stock / super stock considering the era of gameplay, you could be rewarded with a faction skin for free so long as that mech stays stock / super stock.

[SuperFunkTron]

Logan812, on 24 May 2017 - 03:22 AM, said:

I don't restrict my builds based on what's lore-friendly or not (except for something like MekHQ/MegaMek,) but I do like to restrict the chassis themselves to something a particular faction would use just for the extra immersion. It's not necessary, but it keeps things interesting imo.

For example, I won't use a Mauler because I'm loyal to the Free Worlds League. However, if I was in the Draconis Combine then the Mauler is a must-have mech if I wanted an assault.

I'm with Logan on this, incentivizing the use of mechs particular to a faction is a much more worthwhile pursuit to make official.

[sycocys]

"lore" based faction contract rewards for CW deck building.

Then you could just let every merc run whatever he wanted, reduce the match rewards and offset it with faction rewards for running what your chosen faction would have available. Unaffiliated can be bonused by having the cheapest decks and still winning.

Make any attempts at balancing easier since you could just then look at the entire game as mixed drops instead of trying to use tonnage offsets which don't seem to work at all anyhow. Also opens up a built in "challenge" type system for players to attempt for each match.

[Metus regem]

sycocys, on 24 May 2017 - 05:43 AM, said:

&quot;lore&quot; based faction contract rewards for CW deck building.

Then you could just let every merc run whatever he wanted, reduce the match rewards and offset it with faction rewards for running what your chosen faction would have available. Unaffiliated can be bonused by having the cheapest decks and still winning.

Make any attempts at balancing easier since you could just then look at the entire game as mixed drops instead of trying to use tonnage offsets which don't seem to work at all anyhow. Also opens up a built in &quot;challenge&quot; type system for players to attempt for each match.

I'd take it one step further by adjusting rewards to more closely match faction lore, for example:

Clans:
Higher Solo kill reward
Ignore Friendly Fire penalties
Punish KMDD
Punish high damage numbers
Punish focused fire


IS:
Higher KMDD rewards
Reward team play
Punish lone wolf style play.
Spotters gain match score equil to 40% of LRM damage dealt to locked target.

[ScrapIron Prime]

If MWO had made it hard to customize your battlemech like the original lore, then playing stock loadout would have had a place, yes. But they did t, and it isn't, so it won't... Because meta as stated above.

Mind you, i like the idea, and I've done a few challenge drops in stock mechs only, but adding it post beta would cause a few issues.

[Willard Phule]

Sounds cool, but if you want to be technical about it, the Clans would still have more ability to customize. Under the whole "stock" rules, that would mean an Omni could mount the omnipod AND traditional weapon that goes with that omnipod on their chassis since that's supposed to be the strength of an Omnimech over a Battlemech. If, say, the "A" pod mounts a UAC20, then you have to put a UAC20 in it, no downgrading.

[Metus regem]

Willard Phule, on 24 May 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

Sounds cool, but if you want to be technical about it, the Clans would still have more ability to customize. Under the whole "stock" rules, that would mean an Omni could mount the omnipod AND traditional weapon that goes with that omnipod on their chassis since that's supposed to be the strength of an Omnimech over a Battlemech. If, say, the "A" pod mounts a UAC20, then you have to put a UAC20 in it, no downgrading.

The counter point to that is more than a few clan Omni's are under armoured stock, some of them by a frightening amount... they also have a tendency to run very hot with stock weapons.