9 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

Beyond the current Master tier. Applies a per chassis variant enhancement. Examples could include:

AWS-8Q: 5% Less Heat Generated For Each PPC or ERPPC
AWS-9M: 5% More Damage For Each PPC or ERPPC

or

STK-3F: 5% More Damage For Laser Weapons
STK-5S: 5% More Damage For Missile Weapons

Small bonuses to not only further reward unlocking a mech, but to create a reason to chose one variant of a mech over another with very similar (or functionally identical) hardpoints. This could be a partial answer to using, say, an AS7-D-DC verses an AS7-K or, really, any other of the Atlas.

It would create meaningful, though slight, choices in the functional intent of a given battlemech frame without punishing the player outright for ignoring the variant's inherent bonuses, while gently nudging the player towards certain mechs for certain roles. As, in the Stalker vs Awesome case, buffing the PPC use on Awesomes, as they are known for using those, and creating an incentive to use something other then PPC on Stalkers.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 31 January 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[Carrioncrows]

Perhaps something like this - The below is Mech Variant XP as opposed to Pilot XP, so if you want a skill you have to unlock it for that variant and every variant.

In general I would stay away from pure "Damage" buff increase or less "heat." Those things tend to really mess with the balance of the game and since they dev's are working so hard on keeping the balance it would behoove us to throw it out of wack again.

Instead I would focus on modules that help you use weapons better or abilities that you can do while you have a weapon but nothing that increase's the damage they deal, only the different ways you can use them.



Full details found here: http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-thread/

[Pariah Devalis]

Nice graphic. Truly. However, by making all these options available to all variants of all chassis, it gets away from meaningful choice of one variant of a chassis over another with similar slots. A tier 4 should absolutely be something that can differentiate the particular variant from the rest of its family, should it not? Otherwise, even if it takes you a year, you could unlock all of those options on two of the same chassis, making the tier 4 neither special or unique to the variant.


Edit:

Unless you meant to parcel those tier 4 options out, based on the variant itself? Would there even be enough variety if all of them get all four options?

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 31 January 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[Theobald Hauser]

And by taking away multiple choices per chassis, you're making them restraint in available builds...

[Carrioncrows]

*sigh*

To all the guy who didn't read the thread linked in the previous post, Read the thread.

For those that have no intention.

Short Version:
Those expanded Xp mech skills are all obtainable, but if it has "module" listed in it's name then it requires a module slot which really limits your options on both the number of unlocks you can have and the unlocks that provide you with the most benefit on your particular variant.

So if i had a CTF-3D I might consider getting Energy Throughput since I have a lot of energy slots backed up by Advanced piloting: Kick and because I have unlocked a 3rd Module slot and the 3D is relativity fast with it's 280 XL I would go with sprint to get around the field faster using my speed, energy weapons and the ability to melee to my advantage.

You can unlock every skill up there, but because they require a module slot that means you can only "Slot" so many of them.

Now Lets say I get a fresh CTF-4X that I have unlocked everything up to master (giving me a 3rd module slot) besides that you have a fresh chart above there which means I will have to go and re-unlock everything. Just because you unlocked something for the CTF-3D doesn't mean it's unlocked for all variants, you have to specialize. I basically have to start over for that variant just like all the other variants because this is an expanded Mech XP skills.

So the CTF-4X I would unlock AC: ARM, AC: Kinetic impact and probably AC: High Explosive simply because I have a whole lot of ballistic slots and rocking a couple of UAC5's backed up by AC2's or 5's is putting my skills behind what would be the most useful for that particular variant.

What about the CTF-2X? Well that's a toss up you might go with Energy or Missiles, ect ect.

The only mech that I can think of where these expanded abilities might be the same on all of them is the stalker since the builds and hard points hardly change at all, even with the limited hardpoints and lack of variety between all the stalker variants simply having the expanded skills will open up tons of builds previously deemed unacceptable.

Lets take the CTF-4X again and just because you took three of the ballistic slots above doesn't mean that the next guy would. For all you know he could decide to rock AP: Sprint, AP: melee weapon and Flamers: Firebug, because he's a ballistic guy. He doesn't care about heat so setting a fire template on himself and a enemy mech doesn't hurt him only the guy he is fighting. So he can continue to blaze away with ballistics, melee and the sprint to be sure he can keep up with his target.

So you have a CTF-4X and a guy rocking 2 CT mounted flamers....Who does that? That guy, because he can obviously make it work due to the expanded rules.

Hell you could give a 100 guys the same mech with the same weapons and probably get them slotting their skills a hundred different ways.

Everyone does things differently and to their tastes

See what I am working at here?

The above skills don't limit your options but expands them.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 01 February 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Theobald Hauser]

Quote

The above skills don't limit your options but expands them.

And why do you think I was speaking to you ?
Great job being self-obsessed.
Neither the last post nor the OP was yours.

I was defending your idea, but, yeah, don't mind, be a jerk.
I suddenly even wonder why I was agreeing with you in your own thread.

Quote

To all the guy who didn't read the thread linked in the previous post, Read the thread.

To the guy who didn't read the one sentence in the one-sentence-post. Read the sentence.

Edited by Amarius, 01 February 2013 - 01:05 AM.

[Carrioncrows]

Amarius, on 01 February 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

And why do you think I was speaking to you ?
Great job being self-obsessed.
Neither the last post nor the OP was yours.

I was defending your idea, but, yeah, don't mind, be a jerk.
I suddenly even wonder why I was agreeing with you in your own thread.



To the guy who didn't read the one sentence in the one-sentence-post. Read the sentence.

Two reasons.

1. You didn't quote who you were talking to, so I had to read your post and then apply it to the most logical target.

2. The post above your's didn't correlate to what you posted in a way that made sense, so I applied your post to my own which made a bit more sense.

Perhaps I just misunderstood. *shrug* It happens.

If i offended you, I apologize.

[Theobald Hauser]

Carrioncrows, on 01 February 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

Two reasons.

1. You didn't quote who you were talking to, so I had to read your post and then apply it to the most logical target.

The most logical target being you, and ignoring the fact that it didn't make any sense at all ?
Okham's Razor is, for you, people saying senseless **** about you ?

When nothing specified, the more logical assumption would be that the OP is concerned. It's the whole point of, you know, threads.

Quote

2. The post above your's didn't correlate to what you posted in a way that made sense, so I applied your post to my own which made a bit more sense.

The OP did.

Quote

Perhaps I just misunderstood. *shrug* It happens.

If i offended you, I apologize.

"Perhaps" ?
Thanks for your apologizes nevertheless.Yes, I was offended seeing you bashing me when I was actually defending your idea.
I've even talked about the open possibilities in your own thread man.

[Pariah Devalis]

Amarius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

And by taking away multiple choices per chassis, you're making them restraint in available builds...

No, I do not. When the bonus values are small enough, they are nice to have in the intended spirit of a chassis and create a reason to chose one chassis over another with similar hardpoints, but they absolutely do not hurt you by going another direction. A 6 PPC stalker then works just as well as a 6 PPC stalker now. You just have an incentive to use PPCs on an awesome or lasers/lrms on a stalker. You do not get punished for building one way, but you do get rewarded by going another. What do you expect, by taking a mech and making it do something it was never intended to do? You can strap air to air missiles onto an AWACS and it can shoot down aircraft, but it won't ever be as good at it as an aircraft designed to do that job from the get go.

Carrioncrows, on 01 February 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

A lot of text being snipped to condense the quote....

Again, if how you explain it is right, you still do not address making a chassis unique to hard wired basis. Yes, you do give an option for specialization, and yes the hardpoint loadouts will help dictate which module and path you take. However it still does nothing to create a real choice between variants of a mech with near identical hardpoints, and I cannot help but keep pointing to the Stalkers or Atlas as prime examples. Further, you can buff mechs indirectly that are clearly poor, like the 2MLas Spider, by giving them a variant specific nitch that buffs their capabilities to a greater or lesser extent. I do think it is an interesting approach in all other respects, however. It just does not address some of the current problems with variant viability within a given chassis.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 01 February 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Carrioncrows]

Pariah Devalis, on 01 February 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

Again, if how you explain it is right, you still do not address making a chassis unique to hard wired basis. Yes, you do give an option for specialization, and yes the hardpoint loadouts will help dictate which module and path you take. However it still does nothing to create a real choice between variants of a mech with near identical hardpoints, and I cannot help but keep pointing to the Stalkers or Atlas as prime examples. Further, you can buff mechs indirectly that are clearly poor, like the 2MLas Spider, by giving them a variant specific nitch that buffs their capabilities to a greater or lesser extent. I do think it is an interesting approach in all other respects, however. It just does not address some of the current problems with variant viability within a given chassis.

Honestly it's hard to address what the dev's have limited. I have no idea why the dev's made mech variants on some of those mechs almost identical to other load outs that are clearly better. Example is the STK-3H: http://mwowiki.org/wiki/Stalker_STK-3H versus the STK-3F: http://mwowiki.org/wiki/Stalker_STK-3F

The only remotely applicable reason I could think of to buy the 3H over the 3F is the 3H has 20 missile tubes in the arm which allows you to launch LRM20's in one salvo instead of 2 like all the other stalkers. Is that enough ti differentiated it. I don't know.

If these idea's of expanded pilot xp came out then obviously going back and reworking some module slots would be in order.

now in the case of the Spider-5V like you listed there IS already a clear difference.

http://mwowiki.org/w...ght_BattleMechs (Scroll down to the Spiders to see listed module slots)

The 5V has 3 module slots which would allow you to get up to 4 module slots total. The 5K and 5D only have 2 (possible 3) So even though the 5V only has 2E hardpoints it might be more attractive to someone looking to run a highly tuned machine.