20 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

there have been a lot of talk these new Quirks,
some feel that this will help bring back some Mechs,
others feel these proposed Quirks will destroy Customization,

so i had an idea to help expand these new Quirks,
as well as keep the general customization,

the problem,

(quote)(October Road Map)
Hunchback 4G is designated as a Tier 5 Brawler
Because it is a brawler it can get certain types of quirks

Additional Armor (RT) +18
Additional Structure (RT) +12
AC/20 Range +25%
AC/20 Cooldown +25%
AC/20 Velocity +25%
Energy Weapon Heat Gen -12%
Energy Weapon Range +16%
(quote)

i like this but some people feel they are being penalized for not bringing a AC20,
now i know there are no penalties to not taking an AC20, but no benefits ether,


now look to the last 2 Quirks, they look amazing,
i feel to balance these new Quirks out, we should get more Universal Quirks,

a solution would be instead of this-
4G
AC/20 Range +25%
AC/20 Cooldown +25%
AC/20 Velocity +25%
give us this-
4G
AC/20 Range +25%
AC/20 Cooldown +25%
AC/20 Velocity +15%
Ballistics [/color]Velocity +10%
or this for another Variant of the same class-
4H
AC/10 Range +25%
AC/10 Cooldown +15%
Ballistics Cooldown +10%
now this would make AC the same below as above,
but also allow for other Ballistics to benefit as well,


i feel this may be a better Quirks solution to mech balance,
but know even if you agree with this post and these Quirks,
and if PGI looks to this Topic it would not be a quick change,
PGI would have to examine their Quirks, and adjust,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,


P.S.
as October Road Map has been updated, this Topic is now irrelevant,
thank you too all who posted, and thanks to PGI development team,
(i will no longer be updating this Topic)


Edit- [Color] problems and removal
Edit2- New Info,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 20 October 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[AlmightyAeng]

PGI is keeping the weapon specific quirks and the weapon family quirks in separate trees, from what I'm seeing so far.

I'm behind that...otherwise you're going to SUPER buff the specific weapon, and people will still complain that not using it "isn't as good."

I like that they've split the quirks, and would not support your proposed change.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ghost Badger, on 17 October 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

PGI is keeping the weapon specific quirks and the weapon family quirks in separate trees, from what I'm seeing so far.

I'm behind that...otherwise you're going to SUPER buff the specific weapon, and people will still complain that not using it "isn't as good."

I like that they've split the quirks, and would not support your proposed change.

im really not proposing a super buff as:
what we have now-
AC/10 Range +25%
AC/10 Cooldown +25%
what i propose-
AC/10 Range +25%
AC/10 Cooldown +15%
Ballistics Cooldown +10%

the AC10 Cooldown is still +25%(=15%+10%)
so there isnt really a super buff, but spreading some of the bonus,
in this case +10% Ballistics Cooldown is going to all ballistics,

[pulupulu]

I agree with OP saying that quirk should be rearranged a bit to be more versatile.

However, I also agree with PGI that the initial stage, the goal should be making all the low tier mechs more threatening. If we wait for testing on all the versatility, these mechs going to gather dust even longer.

I say let the initial stage come through to make these mechs more playable first, then on a later date, make them more versatile.

Edited by pulupulu, 17 October 2014 - 11:55 AM.

[Mercules]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 October 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

im really not proposing a super buff as:
what we have now-
AC/10 Range +25%
AC/10 Cooldown +25%
what i propose-
AC/10 Range +25%
AC/10 Cooldown +15%
Ballistics Cooldown +10%

the AC10 Cooldown is still +25%(=15%+10%)
so there isnt really a super buff, but spreading some of the bonus,
in this case +10% Ballistics Cooldown is going to all ballistics,

To what end? If I am going to take an AC20 I'll put it on a HBK-4G. If I am going to take an AC/5 I'll put it on a Shadowhawk.

[Joe Mallad]

I really don't see an issue. In lore, the HBK 4G was built "around" the AC-20 as its main selling point. Just as other mechs are intended to be missile mechs or a PPC carrier. Does that mean they have to stay that way? No, but IMO it's much like you buying a super sports car that is built around a unique engine or its superb handling and so on. You get that bonus for buying that car with those bonus quirks. Sure you can take that super sports car engine out and replace it with something you feel works better. But the car may not perform at top efficiency now.

Using the HBK 4G and its AC-20 quirks as an example here... You can put a AC-20 in any Hunchback that has the ballistic hard points in that torso, sure. But IMO the AC-20 "in the 4G" represents this this mech is not using a standard every day AC-20 "Ford" model lol. Its utilizing the high performance "Lamborghini" model.

[Burktross]

pulupulu, on 17 October 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

I agree with OP saying that quirk should be rearranged a bit to be more versatile.

However, I also agree with PGI that the initial stage, the goal should be making all the low tier mechs more threatening. If we wait for testing on all the versatility, these mechs going to gather dust even longer.

I say let the initial stage come through to make these mechs more playable first, then on a later date, make them more versatile.

Agreed

[Joe Mallad]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 October 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

im really not proposing a super buff as:
what we have now-
AC/10 Range +25%
AC/10 Cooldown +25%
what i propose-
AC/10 Range +25%
AC/10 Cooldown +15%
Ballistics Cooldown +10%

the AC10 Cooldown is still +25%(=15%+10%)
so there isnt really a super buff, but spreading some of the bonus,
in this case +10% Ballistics Cooldown is going to all ballistics,

but if I can still get bonuses on all ballistics on the 4G, why would I then want to take any other ballistic model of the Hunch? They are trying to give incentive to use all models not just give a model some bonuses for all weapons.

[Andi Nagasia]

i know and i just made the topic to suppose possible balances to peoples worries,
as well as remind people that it takes time to build a great and balanced system,

setting peoples worries at ease because this is a growing evolving process,
as well all know these will grow and evolve as MWO evolves, thanks for posting,

[LordKnightFandragon]

dang, all these quirks are making mediums armored like heavies, assaults armored like dropships.....+20 to the Awesome armor? +11 to the Atlas armor.

Hunchback getting a combined +30 to it's RT armor? Good lord...a bit much dontcha think? its a medium after all.....Its not supposed to face tank assaults.....

[Josef Nader]

Yoseful Mallad, on 17 October 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

I really don't see an issue. In lore, the HBK 4G was built "around" the AC-20 as its main selling point. Just as other mechs are intended to be missile mechs or a PPC carrier. Does that mean they have to stay that way? No, but IMO it's much like you buying a super sports car that is built around a unique engine or its superb handling and so on. You get that bonus for buying that car with those bonus quirks. Sure you can take that super sports car engine out and replace it with something you feel works better. But the car may not perform at top efficiency now.

Using the HBK 4G and its AC-20 quirks as an example here... You can put a AC-20 in any Hunchback that has the ballistic hard points in that torso, sure. But IMO the AC-20 "in the 4G" represents this this mech is not using a standard every day AC-20 "Ford" model lol. Its utilizing the high performance "Lamborghini" model.

QFT

You aren't being penalized for not putting an AC/20 in there, but PGI wants to encourage Stock+ loadouts. I don't see a problem with this. You can still slap an AC/10 in there, but that's not what the Hunchback is known for. The Hunchback 4G is an AC/20 powerhouse, and it should be focused on being an AC/20 powerhouse with some decent supporting weapons.

Frankly, I like the specialization.

[Mothykins]

Josef Nader, on 17 October 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

QFT

You aren't being penalized for not putting an AC/20 in there, but PGI wants to encourage Stock+ loadouts. I don't see a problem with this. You can still slap an AC/10 in there, but that's not what the Hunchback is known for. The Hunchback 4G is an AC/20 powerhouse, and it should be focused on being an AC/20 powerhouse with some decent supporting weapons.

Frankly, I like the specialization.

Stock; Unless it's a Locust or a few other cases. Apparently, the current thing is to make the 'mech viable in the current meta. In which case you get what people consider "Competitive."

Like the specialization, yes. Like 'mechs I bought for one thing being delegated into a completely unrelated role? No.

Mixed feelings on the whole ordeal.

[Belorion]

You are offering a solution where there is no problem.

[SecretMantis]

How can anyone complain about buffs? Nothing is getting nerfed. I said this in another thread as well, but I thought it deserved repeating.

[Andi Nagasia]

Belorion, on 17 October 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

You are offering a solution where there is no problem.

SecretMantis, on 17 October 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

How can anyone complain about buffs? Nothing is getting nerfed. I said this in another thread as well, but I thought it deserved repeating.

yes and no, i'm offering a solution to what may not be a problem,
personally i like the way this is going, and i'm happy for these quirks,
but some people are complaining that the buffs arn't general enough,
mainly because they are using weapons that arn't getting those buffs,

[Kassatsu]

Excluding the 4J, 4P and 4SP, is it even possible to run a hunchback without an AC20?

And if we're going weapon-specific buffs, how about the 4G gets +200% machine gun damage, range, fire rate and ammo/ton? That would make it more effective than the Arrow in terms of pure dps, at closer to medium laser range, while having the penalty that you have to stare into your opponent's immortal soul for thirty seconds to do any noticeable damage.

Edited by Kassatsu, 17 October 2014 - 03:43 PM.

[Mothykins]

SecretMantis, on 17 October 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

How can anyone complain about buffs? Nothing is getting nerfed. I said this in another thread as well, but I thought it deserved repeating.

Ahhh, here's where you're slightly wrong.

What happens when you buff something massively? Every other option looks weaker in comparison. A whooole lot of things are getting buffed.

When you buff one option massively, it's objectively the same as nerfing the other options.

[Eddrick]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

Like the specialization, yes. Like 'mechs I bought for one thing being delegated into a completely unrelated role? No.

I hope they focus on the Catapult-K2's canon intended role as a Fire Support with 2 PPCs in the Arms. Instead, of focusing on how some people turn it into something that is a different role.

[Tezcatli]

Just play whatever you like. it'll still be better then it is now. If you're playing a build now. There's no reason for you to stop playing it the way you like. "I gotta maximize" Okay, then do that. But if your priority is playing the way you like. Then just do so you still enjoy some of the benefits.

People want them to become the generic number of hard points and hitboxes they are now. I say hell no! Purpose built mechs!

Edited by Tezcatli, 17 October 2014 - 04:29 PM.

[Xarian]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 October 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

yes and no, i'm offering a solution to what may not be a problem,
personally i like the way this is going, and i'm happy for these quirks,
but some people are complaining that the buffs arn't general enough,
mainly because they are using weapons that arn't getting those buffs,

You stated that there was a problem then proposed a solution for it. What specific people are asking for solutions? And if you're happy with it, why did you bother trying to "fix" it? How is this not complaining?

If you're going to make an argument, stand by it. You don't get to say a bunch of stuff that people disagree with and then blame it on some un-named person.