60 replies to this topic

[maxdest]

Make the game more intuitive, not less.

Keep structure / Armour and Agility buffs consistent across a chassis unless there is a good reason (e.g Catapult K2 could be different from other Catapults).

After all the variants share largely the same geometry, and when I look at an Atlas I want to know that it is going to be tough to kill but not very maneuverable, not that one variant is really tough one is weak and three are middling.

Small differences to help balance variants are fine, as are other quirks re. sensors / number of modules etc. but please no major differences.

Edited by maxdest, 19 September 2015 - 03:59 PM.

[Tarogato]

Can't agree with this more.

PGI, if you want to increase TTK, do a global increase to internal structure, but please don't clutter the quirks list with seemingly random assortments of buffs. A few structure quirks are nice for the under-performers, but you've really taken this too far, in my opinion. It's not intuitive.

[ShinobiHunter]

Yes please. All variants of a chassis should be very similar, just adjusted slightly for each.

[Krivvan]

Making the game more or as intuitive as before is right, and what my issue was with there being too many quirks on each mech.

Quirks should be one or a few reserved on a chassis/variant to make them balanced and/or unique. There needs to be flavor for mechs.

Having a Hunchback 4G be a really durable medium and the Hunchback GI be a really manueverable but non-durable medium isn't really very intuitive. For all the faults of the previous quirk system, there was mech flavor. The Hunchbacks were mainly all mechs that could only hold one ballistic, but use that one ballistic really really well at the cost of having a large hunch that was easily shot at from all directions. The few exceptions like the 4J were rare and distinctive enough to be remembered about. People think the GI's gauss cooldown was too fast? Ok, then get rid of the structure quirks on that hunch. Asymmetrically balance it while retaining the theme and flavor.

Another example were the Ravens. The 2X and 4X actually had a variety of builds you could put on them, but the 2X was better at mid/long range poking whereas the 4X was better at extreme long range poking and the 3L was the long range poker with ECM instead. The variants were actual variants on the Raven theme. The one exception was the Huginns, which was a brawler and completely different and easy to know about.

Now the difference between the 2X and 4X is what exactly? They all have the same structure quirks, just with somewhat different values. They have essentially the same hardpoints except one runs 3-4 lasers and the other runs 2. One has somewhat more acceleration? One has a bit more sensor range? What is the theme that they're going for here? It's not even infotech with the infotech nerfs so many of them have. How do I describe Ravens to a new player that wants to know what kind of playstyle they'll like?

There should be effort put into every chassis having a theme that can be described in a few lines that instantly lets a new player get some idea for how they play. Team Fortress 2 has a Scout and a Sniper for example. It doesn't have a Scout that can be built to be a sniper but also built to be a tank.

Will that railroad certain chassis into a type of build? Yeah, sure, that's fine, because there are other chassis that can fit the other roles that a player wants. Trying to make every chassis in the game be able to run every single kind of build is an exercise in futility. Especially when we have so many chassis that are similar already with similar hardpoints except one just has more tonnage than the other or better hardpoint locations.

Edited by Krivvan, 12 September 2015 - 01:56 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Yeah, I agree there should be more consistency with variants of the same chassis.

And I'd roll the boosts into the base stats, so that we then have a small handful of quirks on mechs, that can be say signature features of the mechs.

[Grey Ghost]

Yes, definitely when the variants share the same basic geometry.

[Weaselball]

I agree with this. The basic agility / structure quirks should be kept 100% the same throughout the chassis, save for some fringe elements such as the aforementioned Catapult K2, or the Missile Jager even.

Differentiate the mechs with sensor tweaks and module tweaks to make them a bit different inter-chassis if you must, or even so far as just scaling back the numbers on their quirks (Atlas D getting 50 ct structure, whereas Atlas DDC should have some, but not quite 50). But overall try and keep them the same (don't have 3/4 of a chassis have one type of quirks, then another of the same chassis without any quirks whatsoever. Zeus-6S im looking at you).

As people above have said, It doesn't make too much sense for some mechs to have quirks while others, that look visually identical and have nearly identical hardpoints, have greatly varying degrees of quirkage.

[Koshirou]

Completely agree.

[maxdest]

Addition of poll.

[Nightshade24]

I think they should all be unique besides a few aspects as mentioned on Kanajashi video on this.


For instance lets say this: what makes the hunchback unique to other chassis-ish and consistent with MOST (not all, but most) variants is that there side torso has more amrour and overall it has an armour boost. The rest can be more unique such as the Grid iron having worse mobility but better armour, the 4H is very good at mobility, etc.
However the ST armour boost does not apply to the 4SP

[MechaBattler]

They should have a little of everything, with one stat being the larger, to distinguish them slightly from each other. Then weapon quirks to create some flavor and unique play styles.

[JustEvil]

How about removing chassis variants? I mean. In BT, chassis variants changed with changes/modifications to them. So if you take AS7-D-DC and slap tons of MG on it it isn't AS7-D-DC anymore. I would want a system where we have just one chassis, let's say Atlas and variant depends on how you modify it.

[Omi_]

I really think that it should depend on the chassis.

For example, Shadowhawks aren't really considered to be "tough" among their 55 ton peers. Therefore, there shouldn't be any variants that are notably more tough than any others. However, since an Atlas is generally considered to be a "tough" mech, it could have variants that are tougher than others, though the whole lot should get greater structure/armour quirks than the rest.

All in all, no chassis should have a spread of fast/tough/sensors among it's variants, but rather should have more standardized quirks plus some variation within whatever the mech is known for. For example, I really like how the Panther variants all have (+) long range sensor quirks across the board, reinforcing how the entire family of Panthers are supposed to be long-range support.

As others have pointed out, the Hunchbacks are a prime example of how a chassis shouldn't be quirked. One should be able to paint a picture of what a mech's stats generally represent, and the Hunchback variants are all wildly different from each other.

EDIT: HOWEVER, I do like how the Grid Iron is tougher than the rest of the lot. I think it's okay for PGI to take some creativity with Hero mechs in particular. It's easier to spot a hero mech on the field due to it's special naming and associate a different behaviour for it.

Edited by Hornsby, 20 September 2015 - 10:07 PM.

[grayson marik]

Do the BV system and keep quirks to an absolute minimum!

[DivineEvil]

My opinion, is that they should follow the known lore to determine the roles that different mechs were built for, also making sure to keep disparity in place. That will allow to determine the type of quirks, that every variant of each mech will share among themselves.

Centurion - Defensive quirks prime.
Hunchback - Firepower quirks prime.
Enforcer - Mobility quirks prime.
Trebuchet - Sensors quirks prime.
Crab - Defensive / Sensors quirks hybrid.

Then they can add secondary trait quirks to each variant, with consideration for their benefit to the said variant. Also, Hero mech variants will have their primary trait quirks going to the secondary place, with different trait taking their place.

Centurion CN9-A
Primary: Defence. Secondary: Sensors
Centurion CN9-AH
Primary: Defence. Secondary: Firepower
Centurion CN9-AL
Primary: Defence. Secondary: Mobility
Centurion CN9-D
Hybrid: Defense/Mobility
Centurion CN9-YLW
Primary: Mobility. Secondary: Defense

These definitions can then be used to determine a set of quirks that each variant will get, and then presumably already performed strength evaluations can be used to determine the values of those quirks.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Really agree with the direction of this thread.

It should be the chassis that defines the role and the variant should tweak its strengths and weaknesses.

[Vashramire]

Consistency to the extent of making sense if the chassis are physically and functionally similar. You aren't going to have the same armor/structure on a HBK-4H as the 4SP and other asymmetrical mech variants. More so I would like for chassis to be consistent with info gathering if they go forward with info warfare.

[Spleenslitta]

I agree with the OP. But more importantly- Why the huge difference in torso yaw between variants?

[Solis Obscuri]

Some mechs have always had drastic difference from variant to variant; I think there should be some core attributes for any chassis, but some variants have always been defined by havign more or less armor, different weapon types, higher or lower movement rates, jump jets or a lack thereof, etc. There's no reason "quirks" shouldn't emphasize that.

[Errinovar]

DivineEvil, on 21 September 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

My opinion, is that they should follow the known lore to determine the roles that different mechs were built for, also making sure to keep disparity in place. That will allow to determine the type of quirks, that every variant of each mech will share among themselves.

Centurion - Defensive quirks prime.
Hunchback - Firepower quirks prime.
Enforcer - Mobility quirks prime.
Trebuchet - Sensors quirks prime.
Crab - Defensive / Sensors quirks hybrid.

Then they can add secondary trait quirks to each variant, with consideration for their benefit to the said variant. Also, Hero mech variants will have their primary trait quirks going to the secondary place, with different trait taking their place.

Centurion CN9-A
Primary: Defence. Secondary: Sensors
Centurion CN9-AH
Primary: Defence. Secondary: Firepower
Centurion CN9-AL
Primary: Defence. Secondary: Mobility
Centurion CN9-D
Hybrid: Defense/Mobility
Centurion CN9-YLW
Primary: Mobility. Secondary: Defense

These definitions can then be used to determine a set of quirks that each variant will get, and then presumably already performed strength evaluations can be used to determine the values of those quirks.

I disagree with your analysis, particularly the hero variant quirks simply due to the fact that it often fails to deal with the inherent problems of a given chassis if you pigeon hole it into a defined set of quirks.. for example the YLW has the worst hard points of all IS medium mechs. It has very few viable variations available to it, leaving it as a medium brawler, but a brawler whose main weapon is highly vulnerable and low mounted. Assuming weapon quirks are removed, the YLW more than any other CN9 chassis needs SIGNIFICANT defense buffs simply due to the fact that you are highly range limited, hell a hunchback 4G can pack more firepower than a YLW at an equal tonnage with higher weapon mounts and similar if not better protection on its main weapon.

But honestly, if any of you really remember what it was like before weapon quirks then you will remember that mediums were highly unpopular in general and considered a detriment to the team in competitive play. All the defense buffs in the world aren't going to address the big reason for this. Mediums are way too big for what they bring in terms of armor and firepower, and what little mobility and speed they do bring does't measure up to a heavy on the whole. Once this "balance" pass goes through, I suspect mediums are going to return to the dust bin unless every single variant is addressed specifically to offset the weaknesses and then given strengths to bring it up to par.

Edited by Errinovar, 24 September 2015 - 12:53 AM.