fingerknitter, on December 12 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:
ShadowWarg, on December 12 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:
fingerknitter, on December 12 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:
ShadowWarg, on December 12 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:
PhysicsCrime, on December 12 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:
I'm all for active internals but I don't like the idea of internals having excessive penalties. This was part of the reason that most of the old internals were useless.
Depends on what you mean by excessive I think. If all of these had no drawback for using them, they would be a bit to strong in the game. I Think it just depends on the internal really. But I guess If having drawbacks really is that bad, you could always make the really strong ones require 6 slots.
~Quote~
What if the internals gave a universal penalty_ Say you lose x% of movement speed per slot used or fuel use is increase by x% per slot used_
Oops. didn't mean to do a new post. sorry. meant to edit my last one. Sorry I'll just fade away now. don't mind me.
Then you are directly targetting mechs that rely more on mobility. It is a lot better/more interesting to make penalties based on each item IMO.
Mobility lose was just an example. It could be anything, heat gen increase, lower maximum hover height, etc. Possibly even reversing it is an option. Leaving the current mobility as is if you have a full loadout, mobility increase for each slot you are currently NOT actively using. Seeing as the current games speed is pretty much already established, INCREASING mobility for each empty slot would actually be better than decreasing it for each slot used.
I'll be honest though, is that really a bad thing_ Mobility is the one of the key defining factor in this game. The faster more agile mech usually are the most used and usually are the top mechs because they can out maneuver potential damage easier than the lower speed classes. Those mechs that primarily rely on mobility are the A classes and they are still the strongest classes in the game. Now I'm not saying that the other class have no use or are weak, but A's continue to be the mechs of choice in nearly every level of play.
Now I have nothing against the A classes, in fact I love to use them. But I do think they need to be brought in line with other mechs. I would even go as far as suggesting that the negative draw backs, whether it be mobility or heat generation or whatever, should be dependent on what the weight class of the mech is. something like. (random numbers here)
- A classes lose %3 movement speed, air dynamics, boost speed for each internal slot used = 18% total
- B classes lose %2 movement speed, air dynamics, boost speed for each internal slot used = 12% total
- C classes lose %1 movement speed, air dynamics, boost speed for each internal slot used = 6% total
This also means that there is no one internal that is more appealing than another just because its negatives don't seem to justify the positive. Which is what the dev were trying to do with the new internals. If installing internals has the same downsides across the board, it makes it easier to choose internals that customize your mech to your playstyle, and pretty much boils it down to "Okay, do I want a more versatile mech or a mech with higher preformance" or something like that.
Edited by ShadowWarg, December 14 2013 - 10:54 AM.
3
