So how does everyone feel about paying out premium prices (niodes) for gear and mechas that have vulnerabilities, negatives, or even the dreaded kickback that can blow you up? In my opinion that should be more on the crystal/free gear. I mean we're paying out real cash to get access to supposedly the best on the market and you wind up with gear that reads as though you got it from a disreputable junk dealer. Shouldn't niode gear/mechas be free of such things as we're paying above and beyond the standard in game currency by buying niodes?
I realize there is a game balance at hand and you can't go too far one way or the other with it. However with that said I personally can't help but feel jilted especially at the higher levels/tonnage/gear when just about everything is vulnerable or has negatives attached to it in some way. To be perfectly honest that one factor has had me wondering multiple times how much more I want to deal with as opposed to just saying, Why am I bothering with these pieces at all?
Ron - My only real issue is with kick back items......that particular effect should be relegated to crystal gear and work as an incentive to upgrade to either higher end crystal gear or go niode with it....otherwise....I don't have much of an issue with the checks and balances out there.....a good follow up round table topic for the future comes to mind tho; should there be limits on the number of specific weapons or equipment owned by a player, or should the max caps be raised or even lifted entirely
David - You know Pat, I'm not even sure I understand the topic.
And I think its because you are using the word 'price'.
Y'see, it doesn't matter if I'm paying crystal, niode, cash or seashells. If a piece isn't worth it, i won't buy it.
And I guess it starts with the chassis. Some are good, some are rubbish. I'd spend on a Dreadnought before I spend on a Potatotron and as you mentioned, lighter mechs tend to have better gear. Its almost a knock on effect.
Then again, you can take something like a Fext and work around the gear deficiencies, offsetting one against the other to make a very nasty greebly indeed. That makes it worth it.
Or did you want to re-define the question?
Pat - Ok redefinition it is. Niode gear and mechas supposedly top of the line billy bad ass stuff for the player to get a hold of. Yet most of the niode stuff has a vulnerability, negative etc attached to it. Especially as you go up in tonnage. This has always struck me as odd as it should be harder to micronize something as opposed to putting it in the big shells of heavy mecha. So do you feel that is really the way to go with it? I mean niode gear and mechas are supposed to be the best in game yeah? So if it's the best in game why does so much of it come defective? Why are all the negatives on the niode gear as opposed to the crystal, and why switch out vulnerabilities for a mecha when it never really solves the vulnerability it just moves it around to another stat.
Good example one of my Reaper mechas has an innate vulnerability to missiles. That's just the way it is built. At level 70 something it was at 20%, now fully leveled it has raised to 26%. So on a niode mecha that I have to spend niodes to upgrade I'm getting not only a vulnerability in my mecha but I'm paying 140 niodes for the thing out of the box and 3 a level to get it up to par. Does this seem right to you? Seems a bit off to me, as I said I realize game balance, blah blah blah. But we all know niode gear and mechas are supposed to be the elite stuff to get a hold of. So why for such elite stuff is so much of it basically messed up in some way, and are you comfortable shelling out basically real world finances for what breaks down to in game damaged gear?
Ron - maybe the mechs themselves should have more bonuses.....and the weapons and the slots available for gear should be less.....that way the player would have to concentrate more time and effort to build up a lesser tonnage mech to compete with a higher tonnage mech, and a player would also have to ensure that the few items equiped on his ultra tonnage mecha were top of the line so as not to fall behind the ball curve against lesser sized mechs.
David - Ok, I'm going to take an opposing viewpoint and say that to my mind its actually realistic.
And I shall back that viewpoint up with 2 example analogies.
Consider automobiles. Your normal family sedan would be a crystal model. Cheap, reliable and in most cases just goes and goes with no issues as long as you do regular basic maintenance.
Then compare it with a Formula 1 race car. That is very definately a niode model witha prcie tag so high, normal people would have to mortgage their house just to buy a wing mirror for one.
You are paying through the nose for it to do something very very well. Speed. But for all its price tag, it has drawbacks. Passenger carrying, fuel consumption and the ability to break down in spectacular fashion after a very short distance traveled spring to mind.
To me that sounds very similair to what we have.
Here's the second example, perhaps a little more pertinent.
The precursor to mechs, the main battle tank.
Sherman vs Panzer V (no, I'm not going to start quoting model numbers or variants because going to that minutae would be like us discussing a variation on niode refits on mechs).
Generally looking at the base models, the Sherman would be a crystal mech with crystal shields and weapons. The Panzer was considered superior so we can say its niode with similar niode shields and weapons.
Head to head, general consensus is that the Panzer wins... unless the Sherman can get a shot at the weak rear armor.
Lo and behold, the niode monster has a drawback. Its still a superior tank.
I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. Niode mechs and gear are generally speaking superior to the crystal equivalents and the cost goes up. Yes, most of the niode pieces have drawbacks of some form but they are still generally better than crystal equivalents.
Whether or not the are _worth_ the cost for what you get is down to the person footing the bill.
It always comes back to buyers choice.
Ron - I like that...........one major point that hits me is the fact that a larger mech equals more space....more space means more room for modular upgrades........finding a balance between bigger means better and smaller but more workmanship is a helluva a scale to make equal up......as much as I hate to admit it........some negative attributes seem to be necessary in the larger gear....I think that the negatives are too major however.
David - I think you have a very valid point here Ron.
I mean, if you think of it in very simplistic terms we can all understand, a car engine is small but if you scale that up to a truck engine, not only is it far more complicated and costly, but the performance vs size goes way down (speed) and it has a heck of a lot more vibration which would equate to a penalty of some sort.
Ron - perfect analogy!!!.............the larger a vehicle is (a car, a truck, a tank, a mech, etc) then larger that frame is and the more it can items can fit into that space.....of course the bigger an item is, the heavier it is, and therefore requires more power (a larger engine) to move, and more force to navigate or drive (a larger transmission....in this case chassis items), and the more exotic the control system required to operate it (the cockpits).....so, I do not think it is the items themselves that should suffer, but the mech itself....penalties should reflect in the innate slowness, delayed response time, and complexity of operation of the mech itself......stop dropping engines that run the risk of exploding and give us a mech that needs multiple powerhouse engine blocks to perform at optimal capacity.....I mean, shyte, if you buy a '56 chevy rag top, you are going to need a 350 rocket or better just to move the damn thing, and at least a three core radiator and five speed heavy torc transmission to keep it from overheating and have the ability to control.....if you go popping a four cylinder engine in the bastard, yes the engine will overheat eventually, but before that ever happens the bastard will just move at the speed of turtle... lol.
Pat - See my issue with it is simply to me more size equals more room in which to pad things. So you have more room in a 100 ton mecha to put stabilizers, insulation, whatever is required to balance out the piece. It should be harder to fit such into smaller components and mecha as they have limited room. Yet in game we see the complete opposite with smaller having the advantage and bigger parts being "weaker". If I have a 100 ton mecha chances are pretty good it is reinforced in chassis and armor depending on the type of 100 tonner the vibrations, insulation, etc should be taken into account given the design. Many of the mechas as are if you look at base stats in your garage don't have a lot of the vulnerabilities (minus the Reaper of course), until after you start slapping equipment on. Then you start picking up vulnerabilities and negatives to speed. Again that makes no sense to me. Okay this mecha is fine until I try adding things to it that are supposed to enhance and modify its performance overall. What I get is a crap shoot of penalties and vulnerabilities. Seems to be just my way of thinking though.
Ron - I agree mate........the more I think about it the more I come to the opinion that a heavy tonnage mech should equal more equipment slots and the gear should be big enough and powerful enough to match that big ass monster......maybe the devs should look into reflecting the actual size of these heavy mech equipment items by making one item take up more slots......example.....a 50 ton type engine would take up one gear slot.....a 100 ton engine would take up two......twice the power equals twice the size.....just an idea that popped into my completely mental melon. lol
Pat - Now that I could get behind!
David - Ron, just looping back to a comment you made earlier...
"the mech itself....penalties should reflect in the innate slowness, delayed response time, and complexity of operation of the mech itself."
Innate slowness... we have that, most of the big boys start with negative speed
complexity of operation... again, we have that with pilot skill. Bet it's that long since you had to think about it you'd forgotten it?
Now moving onto size vs weight etc... you already have that in the tonnage ranges for gear... so using our simple analogy from before, you can't fit a truck engine into a car or a tank... size difference is just too great. But if we start stretching that analogy, there is the space to put 1 or 2 engines in a car, 4 in a truck and 6 in a tank, because the bigger the mech, the more engine slots we get.
Ron - exactly.......I replied to that in other responses, but my posts are so scattered throughout the discussion that it got a bit garbled lol.......cheers I agree mate.
Ken - My initial reaction is to design a 100 ton mech that looks like a giant fist with one middle digit raised seven stories into the sky. It's bad enough that to get any truly decent gear that competes with the upper echelons, you have to pay precious niodes for. But then you're going to make me take negatives and vulnerabilities with it...
Then, after calming down, I began to think. Some things just make common sense. You have an engine that powers a 70ton mech at +20? That might give you some heat issues. You have a chassis that boosts your freeze by over 10%? That could cause some brittleness to your frame making you vulnerable to high impact projectile rounds. Jump Jets? Yeah, you might have a missile issue.
I guess as long as it makes sense, then yes. I can see it. Besides, part of the fun is mix and matching your gear so as to compensate for these issues.
Submitted by Pat Willis#224534, Ron Frye#879655, Kenneth Hicks#846092, David McCallum#701548