A balance feature that could give meaning back to light mechs.

[ronhatch]

Y'know... while what I remember the most about lights from beta skirmishes is the reserving trick, another massively helpful trait they have is simply the fact that being faster than the enemy allows you to dictate the terms of the engagement.

My standard tactic with a lance that consists of one mech from each weight class is to send the heavy and assault mechs lumbering up the middle, while the light and medium spread out to the sides. The AI invariably spreads out to try to attack 'em all (granted, it might not do this upon release). Once it does, I have enough speed to collapse my formation down to whichever end I want to start working on first, and often I can get several turns with my entire lance against just one or two mechs. It typically doesn't take many of those before the AI no longer has the capability to fight me at even strength.

Sure, that's in skirmish where you never begin outnumbered, but I would tend to think that choice of where to make first contact would be even more important when outnumbered.

 

[remluf]

I'm torn between not really feeling driven to bring anyone with sensor lock outside of maybe stripping evasion on light targets, and not wanting to have a dedicated mech that just sits there and sensor locks for the team every turn.

--Edit-- I'm assuming you meant "Use sensor lock and all friendlies get +2 accuracy against all targets this turn" rather than "Use sensor lock and all attacks used against the targeted enemy benefit from +2 accuracy"

the second one is a buff without being, imo, obviously broken.

I was referring to the second one. Just one target.

 

[Sunthios]

I feel like that might be something that HBS intends to reserve for ECM 'Mechs.

I feel like there would still be room to change how radar works though I dont know what would be accurate lore wise especially for the time period. ECM mechs would just make it easier for players to sneak around and I feel that they have thier own niche, even if they make changes to the radar system, such as using terrain to block LOS and then flanking the enemy or forcing them to split thier forces to cover thier sides.

But I digress I'm just trying to figure out a good method to make light mechs more useful because let's be honest if I'm running a bunch of heavy/assault mechs with at least one or two lrm boats as soon as I see one mech in the front as a spotter I'll sensor lock that mech immediately and just lay down the pain with lrms. I'll do my best to force the engagement on my terms if i feel that you are going to do your best out maneuver me.

 

[me987654]

And I would argue that anybody that uses the mediums that are as slow as a heavy deserves exactly what they get.

Griffin/Shadowhawk/Wolverine look like the sweet spot for mediums. Fast, pretty well armed and jump capable.

I love hunchbacks... but it's probably better to bring something bigger for that AC/20 at some point.

 

[Tangman]

King Crab!

Also, you can never get enough Hunchienator. 2 Hunchies, 2 King Crabs for even more AC20 Action. Probably not ideal, but do it once just because why the hell not?

 

[Gamesguy]

I think a small and easy change would be to make lighter mechs harder to detect on sensors. This way light mechs can surprise unescorted heavy mechs.

 

[Alkedamus]

I think a small and easy change would be to make lighter mechs harder to detect on sensors. This way light mechs can surprise unescorted heavy mechs.

Couldn't agree more .

 

[Frank E]

I will say that it makes no sense for all Mech upkeep costs to be the same. Every mech should have an upkeep that is a percentage of the base chassis cost combined with a percentage of all the mounted weapons and equipment. An Atlas should cost way more than a locust to upkeep. (probably more than 4 locusts for that matter)

Unless something's changed since the beta, it doesn't look like we'll be able to mod mech upkeep costs. There's a global "MechCostPerQuarter" that can be modified but there's no variable that lets you define a specific upkeep cost for each mech chassis. So, unfortunately, it doesn't look like you could change the monthly cost for an Atlas to be different from a Locust.

 

[Alkedamus]

Unless something's changed since the beta, it doesn't look like we'll be able to mod mech upkeep costs. There's a global "MechCostPerQuarter" that can be modified but there's no variable that lets you define a specific upkeep cost for each mech chassis. So, unfortunately, it doesn't look like you could change the monthly cost for an Atlas to be different from a Locust.

That's too bad...of all the other balance changes/suggestions in the thread having big mechs simply cost should be the bare minimum in my opinion.

 

[Bersercker]

Unless something's changed since the beta, it doesn't look like we'll be able to mod mech upkeep costs. There's a global "MechCostPerQuarter" that can be modified but there's no variable that lets you define a specific upkeep cost for each mech chassis. So, unfortunately, it doesn't look like you could change the monthly cost for an Atlas to be different from a Locust.

Damn, if that is the case this is a disaster. RIP light mechs. Would be pretty hard (or impossible) to fix the economy without it as well.

 

[Camicon Dachass]

Damn, if that is the case this is a disaster. RIP light mechs. Would be pretty hard (or impossible) to fix the economy without it as well.

You can incentivize the use of Light 'Mechs even without tonnage-dependent upkeep costs. Honestly, that would be the least effective way to incentivize using Light 'Mechs in the mid- and late-game.

 

[Bersercker]

You can incentivize the use of Light 'Mechs even without tonnage-dependent upkeep costs. Honestly, that would be the least effective way to incentivize using Light 'Mechs in the mid- and late-game.

IMO modifying all the existing contracts and\or adding a bunch of new contracts so that lights would be useful in them would be an order of magnitude harder for the modders to do, if at all possible.

 

[Camicon Dachass]

IMO modifying all the existing contracts and\or adding a bunch of new contracts so that lights would be useful in them would be an order of magnitude harder for the modders to do, if at all possible.

I'd rather see you incentivized to bring a lighter force of 'Mechs into combat by rewarding you with Reputation for completing a contract with a chevron rating lower than that of the skull rating (and then tying your Reputation score to the availability of high-level equipment and personnel in the shops and Hiring Halls).

If we're talking about creating game mechanics and values, rather than just editing values HBS has given us, might as well make it something that adds to the overall complexity of the game rather than just making the economy sim more unforgiving in the late-game.

 

[Bersercker]

I'd rather see you incentivized to bring a lighter force of 'Mechs into combat by rewarding you with Reputation for completing a contract with a chevron rating lower than that of the skull rating (and then tying your Reputation score to the availability of high-level equipment and personnel in the shops and Hiring Halls).

Well, thats not a bad idea. Though something more would be needed to make the lights attractive imo. Possibly drop tonnage limits for contracts.

If we're talking about creating game mechanics and values, rather than just editing values HBS has given us, might as well make it something that adds to the overall complexity of the game rather than just making the economy sim more unforgiving in the late-game.

Thats the thing. Tweaking JSONs is easy enough, but to create new game-mechanics there has to be a somewhat experienced C# software engineer among the comunity, who would be motivated enough to dig through the decompiled source code and make the changes for free. Not sure how likely is that to happen, but you don't see Long War mod for every game.

 

[Camicon Dachass]

Well, thats not a bad idea. Though something more would be needed to make the lights attractive imo. Possibly drop tonnage limits for contracts.

Drop tonnage limits make no sense (a Leopard's lift capacity doesn't magically change from contract to contract, and why would your employer care if your lance weighs 215 tons and not 200 tons?), and they restrict your ability to deploy lances of Heavies and Assaults if that's what you want to do.

Thats the thing. Tweaking JSONs is easy enough, but to create new game-mechanics there has to be a somewhat experienced C# software engineer among the comunity, who would be motivated enough to dig through the decompiled source code and make the changes for free. Not sure how likely is that to happen, but you don't see Long War mod for every game.

Indeed. There's no way to tell if simple .json tweaking will allow us to alter the gameplay in such a way as to incentivize lighter lances, without penalizing heavier lance, until we get our hands on the files, but I suspect that it will be no small feat. While I wouldn't be surprised if there are individuals in the community who have the skills that would allow them to create new game mechanics, it's not something we can count on. I think we'd have better luck with HBS implementing some new ideas when they introduce the Raven and it's EW suites.

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I do think that rewarding us with Reputation for completing contracts "under tonnage" as it were, and expanding the impact that Reputation has in the economy sim, is probably the best way to incentivize using lighter lances.

For starters, both you and Kereminde responded to the idea positively, which says to me that it's generally agreeable. And like Kereminde said, I think making Reputation more useful in the economy sim seems like something the HBS intended to do but ran out of time for. Adding depth to the economy sim without introducing entirely new metrics can only be a good thing.

It also incentivizes using lighter lances without actually changing anything in the combat sim. It doesn't make Light 'Mechs better brawlers (they shouldn't be), or harder to kill (keeps the combat times reasonable). And not changing anything in the combat sim means that you don't have to worry about unbalancing the combat gameplay, which would keep playtesting and balance passes to a minimum.

Finally, it doesn't benefit only Light 'Mechs. If you want to take on a 3 skull missions with only a 2 skull lance then you might be able to do so by running an Assault, a Medium, and two Lights; or, perhaps a lance of four Mediums. It lets you choose your lance composition, moreso than a change that would simply incentivize the use of 'Mechs that are specifically under 40 tons. It gives players an opportunity to take on a greater challenge, but lets us choose the terms of that challenge, and then properly rewards us for succeeding at that challenge with shiny new toys and badass new hires.

All upside, no downside, and minimum fuss. So far as I can tell, at least. Though I could be barking mad.

 

[Hasler]

Drop tonnage limits make no sense (a Leopard's lift capacity doesn't magically change from contract to contract, and why would your employer care if your lance weighs 215 tons and not 200 tons?), and they restrict your ability to deploy lances of Heavies and Assaults if that's what you want to do.


Indeed. There's no way to tell if simple .json tweaking will allow us to alter the gameplay in such a way as to incentivize lighter lances, without penalizing heavier lance, until we get our hands on the files, but I suspect that it will be no small feat. While I wouldn't be surprised if there are individuals in the community who have the skills that would allow them to create new game mechanics, it's not something we can count on. I think we'd have better luck with HBS implementing some new ideas when they introduce the Raven and it's EW suites.

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I do think that rewarding us with Reputation for completing contracts "under tonnage" as it were, and expanding the impact that Reputation has in the economy sim, is probably the best way to incentivize using lighter lances.

For starters, both you and Kereminde responded to the idea positively, which says to me that it's generally agreeable. And like Kereminde said, I think making Reputation more useful in the economy sim seems like something the HBS intended to do but ran out of time for. Adding depth to the economy sim without introducing entirely new metrics can only be a good thing.

It also incentivizes using lighter lances without actually changing anything in the combat sim. It doesn't make Light 'Mechs better brawlers (they shouldn't be), or harder to kill (keeps the combat times reasonable). And not changing anything in the combat sim means that you don't have to worry about unbalancing the combat gameplay, which would keep playtesting and balance passes to a minimum.

Finally, it doesn't benefit only Light 'Mechs. If you want to take on a 3 skull missions with only a 2 skull lance then you might be able to do so by running an Assault, a Medium, and two Lights; or, perhaps a lance of four Mediums. It lets you choose your lance composition, moreso than a change that would simply incentivize the use of 'Mechs that are specifically under 40 tons. It gives players an opportunity to take on a greater challenge, but lets us choose the terms of that challenge, and then properly rewards us for succeeding at that challenge with shiny new toys and badass new hires.

All upside, no downside, and minimum fuss. So far as I can tell, at least. Though I could be barking mad.

I came up with this too in the drop tonnage thread. I think it works on two principles. One we saw in a cohh stream a rep linked mission, so there is financial incentive to get better missions. Two, doing this allows you to gain rep without sacrificing c-bills or salvage further incentivizing the player.

 

[Camicon Dachass]

I came up with this too in the drop tonnage thread. I think it works on two principles. One we saw in a cohh stream a rep linked mission, so there is financial incentive to get better missions. Two, doing this allows you to gain rep without sacrificing c-bills or salvage further incentivizing the player.

Awesome! So I'm probably not barking mad! (or we both are, but that seems less likely)

But I do think rewarding us with Reputation for completing a contract under tonnage would require Reputation to play a part in the economy sim, in order for it to remain relevant throughout the game (and thus continue incentivizing the use of under tonnage lances). Maybe also introduce a Reputation decay mechanic, so that if you don't take contracts with a certain faction for an extended period of time you begin losing Rep with them. That way it would be unlikely for you to ever have full Reputation with every faction, even if you play procgen missions for eighty hours straight.

 

[Camicon Dachass]

Also, perhaps having max Reputation with one faction would lock you out of having max reputation with other factions. The decay mechanic would allow you to change which faction you have max rep with over time, and not permanently lock you out. The faction you have max Rep with could determine what kind of equipment and pilots you have access to; they, moreso the equipment than the pilots, could be flavoured such that having max Rep with House Marik would give you access to some sweet +++LRMs and sensor equipment, whereas having max Rep with House Davion would give you access to some beefy +++ACs and fancy gyros.

 

[Bodha]

IMO modifying all the existing contracts and\or adding a bunch of new contracts so that lights would be useful in them would be an order of magnitude harder for the modders to do, if at all possible.

Lets say just for the sake of argument that adding missions are relatively easy as in fill out a template. If that is the case its just a matter of making some smart choices. Take for instance the escort mission. What if a copy was made that specifically mentioned you are escorting vert fast hovercraft?

Im not saying it is that easy but it might be quite a bit easier than you think. If modders are going to have a big impact it will be through AI, some weapon changes, adding some mechs, and missions. I know they can do 3 of the 4 and I suspect the 4th as well. If they can we will see some amazing mods rolling out. The first 2 categories will be dealt with quickly. The third might take awhile and the last one if it is possible will be the one that will kind of an ongoing project.


Just for your consideration:
http://btmodding.warriorsblood.com/index.php?title=Contracts

 

[Bersercker]

Lets say just for the sake of argument that adding missions are relatively easy as in fill out a template. If that is the case its just a matter of making some smart choices. Take for instance the escort mission. What if a copy was made that specifically mentioned you are escorting vert fast hovercraft?

Im not saying it is that easy but it might be quite a bit easier than you think. If modders are going to have a big impact it will be through AI, some weapon changes, adding some mechs, and missions. I know they can do 3 of the 4 and I suspect the 4th as well. If they can we will see some amazing mods rolling out. The first 2 categories will be dealt with quickly. The third might take awhile and the last one if it is possible will be the one that will kind of an ongoing project.


Just for your consideration:
http://btmodding.warriorsblood.com/index.php?title=Contracts

Even if its easy got to think of what is even possible to do for lights with the constraints of the missions, number of units available to the player, etc. So far i could think of only these two:

Similar to mechcommander's "capture\destroy turret generator\control tower before the enemy gets there": Assuming it would be possible to make it so that AI wouldn't run away from the protection of its turrets, and modify the generator placement so that it would be really far away - this could work. Not sure if this would be possible with procedurally generated missions and AI modifiers though. AI has to move its forces to get covering fire from the turrets and assume defensive positions while trying to intercept anyone trying to break through and not moving too far away from the turrets. Seems kinda advanced logic to make with just a bunch of modifiers in jsons, unless the devs already made some similar mission objectives with apropriate AI behaviour thing.

Another thing that would be possible is adding an optional assasination objective to kill some vehicles that run away really fast, but thats kinda meh imo. With the amount of money and salvage available in the game the player might decide that its not worth the trouble most of the time.

The idea would be to randomly add one of these(or none) to all missions of so that the player might want to bring a light just in case. Seems kinda insufficient though, and definitely need much more of these, otherwise they'll get old real fast.

Could also add some missions that could be completed only with lights but thats kinda bad idea imo. Its like "ok, get all assaults but just for this one mission bring a light lance". I'd probably ignore such a mission after early game unless it had a really big reward(similar to 3-5 skulls), but then why would it pay well if it can be completed with just the lights.

Also, i've read in other thread that a number of medium mechs have the same\almost the same max movement as lights, (e.g. cicada same as locust), which means lights will still be more or less obsolete if their upkeep is the same as mediums.

So, yeah. Making mech upkeep cost depend on the tonnage would have been much easier and more effective imo, if it would have been possible.