|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ask yourself what makes the Thunderbolt and Catapult such a decent mechs and the Dragon such a lovely one. It isn't the five ton weight difference. The dragon is poo poo because: -It has a medium mech movement profile, but for some reason has 1 less initiative -There are no light weight, short/mid range ballistic weapons, making the dragon's ballistic hardpoints worthless The Dragon is easily fixed by: -Tying initiative to movement profile, rather than arbitrary tonnage categories. I.e. the Dragon goes to initiative phase 3, Victor, Zeus and BLR go to 2, etc. -Add lighter weight, short/mid range ballistic weapons either by breaking the timeline (add LACs and RACs), or by adding novel weapons Some mechs (the overengined assaults) require more drastic changes to the system to be on par with other mechs (see my other post), but it is doable. You can even add equipment that isn't part of CBT, but that has fixed tonnage/slot/location limitations that can be carried by any mech. There's no reason for mechs to suck inherently. The power curve in this game is tonnage and equipment quality based, and that's enough. Really, the biggest, and most dire condemnation of chassis quirks is that it something that PGI came up with.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Q_res posted:This is actually dumb and bad because it doesn’t fix anything and arguably makes things worse. Instead it changes a hypothetical “don’t use the Marauder, it sucks” to “salvage a Marauder, rip out the targeting computer and put that in your Orion, then sell the Marauder”. It might actually be worse than not doing quirks at all. In this hypothetical situation, it is dumb and bad to paper over the reasons that the Marauder sucks with a quirk, instead of addressing issues with mech construction/weapon balance that lead to the Marauder sucking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Hot take: Anyone defending mech quirks is defending  Give everyone defending a "PGI LOVER" avatar, and replace Trump's face with Russ/Paul.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
I still like Mechwarrior 4's mechbay the most. It gives enough room you can make some fun builds but it dictating how much can go where helps keep the original flavor (as far as you can tell in MW4).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
I mean mechs have had quirks since long before pgi was ever a thing so people talking about them are talking about something thats been in tt since before most of the games were even ideasRBA Starblade posted:I still like Mechwarrior 4's mechbay the most. It gives enough room you can make some fun builds but it dictating how much can go where helps keep the original flavor (as far as you can tell in MW4). Mw4 was skewed too far towards elimitaing omnimech ability on omnis (like the direwolf) mw 3 turned every mech into an omni on a commando raid. Its possible to get quirks to be between those two extremes without doing the horribe RT route of some mechs do triple damage with lasers because this one has the same name as phelan kell's wolfhound or whatever Stravag fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Nov 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
It's also okay for some giant robots to just be dogshit you use out of necessity or on your way to actually good mechs, or just as something more to shoot at. Variety's good! Introduce random "custom" builds for every few robots you punch too. Let the AI go to town.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
I love the discussion on what optimal mechs are, because it pretends that I'm not at the whim of RNG for mechs available to salvage or buy. I'll run a dragon every day if it's the only heavy I can ever get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Organ Fiend posted:Hot take: Anyone defending mech quirks is defending Quirks existed as optional rules in tabletop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Never listen to min-maxers for balance. Also use mechs kill mechs buy mechs
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Never listen to min-maxers for balance. PPC = broke PPC on an Urbie = woke
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Organ Fiend posted:Really, the biggest, and most dire condemnation of chassis quirks is that it something that PGI came up with. Quirks existed in TT before MWO was a glint in the eye of a lovely developer. Try again. No matter how you “fix” the construction rules there will be substandard chassis. Quirks are an easy way to give Mechs a little additional character (the actual best reason to do quirks) while leveling the playing field by giving bad Mechs potential niche uses. Look at your ideas to fix the Dragon. Invent new weapons (no thanks, COILs are bad enough), move LACs or other advanced ballistics forward in the timeline (I’m actually onboard for this one) or changing the initiative system to be based on speed. Ah that old pubbie chestnut, that’s somehow less arbitrary for reasons no one can ever explain. Initiative in TT has nothing at all to do with either weight class or movement (they’re in fact equally arbitrary), frankly based on TT you could argue initiative should be a pilot trait and not tied to chassis at all, but lets pretend your reasoning isn’t bullshit and explore this idea a little. This game has 5 initiative phases, one of which is accessible only via pilot skill. In this game you have Mechs that can move (using TT equivalents) 2/3, 3/4, 4/6, 5/8, 6/9, 7/11 and 8/12. Oh dear, that’s 7 different speeds for 4 different initiative phases. So either you need to redesign the initiative system or arbitrarily group some of those speed profiles together. Even ignoring that, you still haven’t actually fixed the Dragon because the 55 ton Mediums still exist. Oh, but you have hosed the Urbie and the Panther. So good job on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Stravag posted:I mean mechs have had quirks since long before pgi was ever a thing so people talking about them are talking about something thats been in tt since before most of the games were even ideas Rhymenoserous posted:Quirks existed as optional rules in tabletop. First of all, emphasis on "optional." There's a reason they weren't part of the standard rule set. Second, the quirks in CBT were functionally different than PGI style quirks. CBT quirks were standardized (i.e. any given mech with "extended torso twist" could extend the same as any other), while PGI quirks are "Mech X can do Y for reasons." Additionally, CBT quirks had point values, and required you to balance positive and negative quirks by point value. I.e. they were functionally equivalent to a type of equipment with standard rules that applied to all mechs, while PGI style quirks are "lol, this mech can do poo poo for some reason."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
Q_res posted:No matter how you “fix” the construction rules there will be substandard chassis. Quirks are an easy way to give Mechs a little additional character (the actual best reason to do quirks) while leveling the playing field by giving bad Mechs potential niche uses. I honestly do not understand why people accept this as some kind of hard and fast rule. If you allow yourself to go beyond CBT construction rules, there is no reason this has to be true. quote:Look at your ideas to fix the Dragon. Invent new weapons (no thanks, COILs are bad enough), move LACs or other advanced ballistics forward in the timeline (I’m actually onboard for this one) or changing the initiative system to be based on speed. Ah that old pubbie chestnut, that’s somehow less arbitrary for reasons no one can ever explain. Initiative in TT has nothing at all to do with either weight class or movement (they’re in fact equally arbitrary), frankly based on TT you could argue initiative should be a pilot trait and not tied to chassis at all, but lets pretend your reasoning isn’t bullshit and explore this idea a little. Initiative based on movement profile is the opposite of arbitrary. Its concrete and easily definable. Also, initiative in TT has nothing to do with initiative in BATTLETECH, so I really don't see your point. BATTLETECH's system is better and should be improved upon. quote:This game has 5 initiative phases, one of which is accessible only via pilot skill. In this game you have Mechs that can move (using TT equivalents) 2/3, 3/4, 4/6, 5/8, 6/9, 7/11 and 8/12. Oh dear, that’s 7 different speeds for 4 different initiative phases. So either you need to redesign the initiative system or arbitrarily group some of those speed profiles together. Even ignoring that, you still haven’t actually fixed the Dragon because the 55 ton Mediums still exist. Oh, but you have hosed the Urbie and the Panther. So good job on that. Fixing initiative by movement profile is simple with only a little bit of imagination. All you do is add one phase (zero), and split mechs into initiative phases like so: 5: None (for MT/Vigilance) 4: 6/9 and faster 3: 5/8 2: 4/6 1: 3/5 and slower 0: None (for knockdowns and precision strikes) The functional difference between 6/9s and faster and 3/5s and slower isn't great enough to split things into more blocks. Zero is added so that assaults/slow mechs can fight on the same level as every other kind of mech (i.e you can set up power plays with knockdowns/precision strike or you can reserve in phase 1). The free tonnage difference between a 55 and 60 tonner is marginal. The biggest differences are hardpoints and initiative phase. Hell, the quickdraws would be excellent ML/SRM backstabbers if it wasn't for the initiative issue. As for the Panther and Urban, these mechs aren't currently competitive in a non tonnage restricted environment, and initiative nerfs wouldn't change that. They would still be useful (somewhat) in a tonnage restricted environment because they can carry firepower that decimates mechs in their weight class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Seconding MW4 having the best mechlab. I still play the poo poo out of MW4:Mercs. That game just does not get old to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Organ Fiend posted:Initiative based on movement profile is the opposite of arbitrary. Its concrete and easily definable. Just like basing it on weight class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Just like basing it on weight class. Weight is a continuum. Movement profile has discrete steps with big differences between the steps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
As evidenced by grouping some together, since there’s no functional difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
You guys know that the "sophistication" of the systems involved is directly correlated to how niche a product this is, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Doesn't solve the 'problem' battletech has that one 100 ton mech is always more than twice as good as 2 50 ton mechs. IDK what kind of mechs you're fielding, but two Centurions are better than one Atlas. Organ Fiend posted:The free tonnage difference between a 55 and 60 tonner is marginal. The biggest differences are hardpoints and initiative phase. Hell, the quickdraws would be excellent ML/SRM backstabbers if it wasn't for the initiative issue. And the tonnage issue. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Nov 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:You guys know that the "sophistication" of the systems involved is directly correlated to how niche a product this is, right? This is exactly why I like the weight class based initiative. Small Mech goes first, big Mech goes last is dead simple and straightforward. I’m not sure you could make it easier for someone that doesn’t know what the gently caress MechWarrior is, let alone BattleTech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
I can only imagine how wtf it would be for new people if banshee 3ms were moving with cents
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Organ Fiend posted:First of all, emphasis on "optional." There's a reason they weren't part of the standard rule set. Quirks are an outgrowth of art and flavor text, and plenty of canon mech designs have an imbalance in the net value of their quirks. Like many advanced rules quirks have a "get permission from everyone playing the game first" caveat, and the balancing suggestion is a means for people to tamp down on rear end in a top hat powergamers trying to exploit them. It should also be noted that there are a lot of quirks that would only play out in the strategic layer, which brings to mind the fact that monthly mech maintenance costs the same regardless of their size. Maybe the royal crab lance with fancy guns out the wazoo ought to cost substantially more to field than a bog standard assault lance or gussied-out heavies and mediums. I've also been thinking that mechs requiring the same amount of parts to construct (totally not regretting how I forgot about the new Urbanmech variants until 200 days left in my five-part career run) may not be the best way to do things either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
Obviously quirks should include effects on your mechwarriors so you can bankrupt your company after your interstellar health insurance denies your mechwarriors surgery claims after they ruined their backs and limbs trying to pilot the overstuffed claustrophobic nightmare engines you gave them. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Obviously quirks should include effects on your mechwarriors so you can bankrupt your company after your interstellar health insurance denies your mechwarriors surgery claims after they ruined their backs and limbs trying to pilot the overstuffed claustrophobic nightmare engines you gave them. Or just expand on the pilot skills. Maybe have a few of them be branching. Like, I'm imagining a second tier piloting skill that halves incoming damage if you are piloting a light mech (or a fast medium or something I dunno) and either jump or move some reasonably far distance. That's the kind of thing that could make a late game jumping rear end in a top hat urbie or sprinting backstabber firestarter a real headache. That might be a garbage idea, but my point is that you could go down some really niche paths that would make currently unappealing mechs more viable. Maybe the Dragon and Zeus are always going to be poo poo, but you could at least squeeze in later game uses for lights and mediums.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
Attempting to balance lights into competing with heavier mechs at the same tasks is a garbage idea, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ask yourself what makes the Thunderbolt and Catapult such a decent mechs and the Dragon such a lovely one. It isn't the five ton weight difference. Power to weight ratios are a thing, and a big thing in battletech. This lays it out pretty well. Basically, a lot of early on designs WERE intentionally off the power curve. THis is why the timber wolf, for example, was such a massive deal when it first showed up. http://www.ci-n.com/~jcampbel/rpgs/battletech/rnd/optimalweight.html The tabletop quirks(these exist) as far as I can tell are along the lines of 'the shitter it is, the more free stuff it gets'. So, theoretically I'm okay with quirks being there as a balancing act in 'this mech is x tons off the baseline, and thus deserves some sort of love for being unoptimal/flavor to make it useful and different'. Practically... I hope they don't go the PGI route. Side note. Here's the fun fact about the dragon: Its actually at the ideal weight/mass for a 60 ton heavy with 5 movement points. Make it bigger to 65 tons? Lose a ton of space. make it smaller at 55? Lose a ton of space. The major problem a lot of mechs have is context: Its good for its time. If anything, I don't think it feels fast enough: Battletech's run speed is time and a half movement, which I think is a dated mechanic for today's nerds used to other games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
If the Dragon didn't have 1 ton jump jets and such lovely hardpoints and in HBS BT worse initiative than the entire 55 ton mech category which otherwise have near identical base chassis stats, then it could maybe be ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
Quirks sound kind of fun to me, someone who likes battletech but never played the tabletop game. They'd have to be really tiny advantages, almost to the point of flavor or it would unbalance things. I gather that the Dragon DG1 is a good "tackler" so maybe... it can initiate melee from 1 hex further away, or do extra stability damage on attacks. Something that would add a little purpose to the individual chassis' without making them one-trick ponies. Pilot skill with specific mechs or weight classes would also be a neat way to do it though. Also I want to see the 2x Centurions vs 1x [100 ton assault] fight gamed out. One of the Centurions tries to get behind the (atlas/crab) and shoot it in the back, before the big assault can alpha-cripple one of them? Would 8 50-ton mediums also beat 4 100-ton assaults? I suppose there is an optimal battle-value per ton, and all things equals the most efficient BV/ton lance wins. Still seems like the assault would have at least a puncher's chance in the 2v1 scenario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Also I want to see the 2x Centurions vs 1x [100 ton assault] fight gamed out. One of the Centurions tries to get behind the (atlas/crab) and shoot it in the back, before the big assault can alpha-cripple one of them? Would 8 50-ton mediums also beat 4 100-ton assaults? I suppose there is an optimal battle-value per ton, and all things equals the most efficient BV/ton lance wins. Still seems like the assault would have at least a puncher's chance in the 2v1 scenario. No need to shoot it in the back, but it's certainly an option given the Centurion's initiative and movement advantage - a CN9-AL can deliver a 241 damage backstab, and between the two of them get 3 or 4 alphas off before the Assault can retaliate. That aside, it's down to the fact that Cents can put down ~200 DPR of efficient firepower each, with quite high effective HP, while a 100 tonner can do 250~300 tops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
The Centurion is a really, really good mech for its weight class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
Dang, they should have just upscaled that bad boy to 100 tons then. Or even... tuh... two hundred tons? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
With the high damage weapons and coolant vent you can get 100 tonners up to three turns of 600ish damage alpha before they need to rest. But yeah, the Centurion-AL is just a Thunderbolt-5SE with one less medium laser.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
McGavin posted:With the high damage weapons and coolant vent you can get 100 tonners up to three turns of 600ish damage alpha before they need to rest. You cannot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
Why do lots of unfocused damage when you could slap two AC-20s on it and spend all your morale going for headshots? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
My idea to make lighter mechs useful would be to make missions time ala XCom 2. Now if you want to drop full slow assault lance, you will have to go straight to your target zone every turn, and have no time to maneuver/position yourself, while faster and lighter mechs can afford turns spent positioning for cover/backstabs and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You cannot. King Crab: 4xSRM6=4x12x6=288 damage 2xML=2x35=70 damage 2xLL=2x50=100 damage 4xSL=4x30=120 damage Total=578 damage Slap on 2 of the 20% Thermal Exchangers to bring your heat generated down to 84, which you can sink for 3 turns of alpha with 5 DHS and coolant vent. Atlas II: 2xAC/20=2x120=240 damage 2xSRM6=2x12x6=144 damage 4xML=2x35=140 damage 4xSL=4x30=120 damage Total=644 damage Slap on 3 of the 20% Thermal Exchangers to bring your heat generated down to 73, which you can sink for 3 turns of alpha with 3 DHS and coolant vent. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
Oh you're talking sp variant equipment? Then sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
I mean, you're using an Atlas II, I don't think you're stuffing the ML you stole from a Locust in that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Free idea for battletech 2 would be to make most of your mechwarriors prima donnas with alot of negative personality traits that could crib from crusader kings. Might make fielding vehicles and infantry with a bunch of proles worth it if you know that your mechwarriors decide to get pissy and insubordinate
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
"Help my 10-15 mechwarriors have unionized!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 15:48
|
|