LogFAQs > #970906451

I do have to disagree on that point. Bios create a point of intention for a mercenary, creating a basis that can then be exaggerated on, while giving a clear weak point in the intent of a bio. The amount of bias that a bio gives is honestly lesser than a very core mechanic of mercs, which would be "why are you arguing my 6/week loses to a 5/week?! If it were weaker, it'd be lower priced!" The admin bias exists simply in terms of basic game balancing; honestly, I feel the bios do work to mitigate this by creating a baseline expectation of abilities.

I also do not feel that the onus of a merc leader is research; that's freely available information, you should be able to know WHAT a guy does when you get them to at least some extent, especially when it might not be instantly obvious. I feel that the onus should be on the leader to be able to take that information and put it into an engaging, or at least amusing, argument on why their stupid toys should beat up other stupid toys. Every model is built with some level of intention, be it buffing up a singular target, having one cool thing they do that makes them a 4/week but the rest of their kit is lacking so they have a stronger ability web to make up for it, etc. Being able to state that intent is very important, and we've seen a lot of competitive games go this route in explaining their philosophies behind, say, how fighting game characters work and what buffs and nerfs are being applied to better lean into that.

I do agree that direct comparison to other mercs not from the same series shouldn't be done. But I think, at minimum, this is a net neutral proposition, as this expectations of what a merc can do are already built in to their pricing, it's just making those factors transparent. And at the very least, bios woulda been of significant stress relief to me back in the day.