963 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Tynan, on 17 October 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

I don't entirely disagree with this, and there's definitely variation in quality among the proposed quirks. It's part of why I brought up the HBK-4G as, what I thought, anyway, a stellar example--a specific weapon buff for one build, but a general energy buff as an augment.

I think more general bonuses can be good but risks flattening out the uniqueness some of these quirks are giving to otherwise bland variants. Basically, I like the specificity but completely get where you're coming from.

It can be argued either way, which I thought I'd acknowledged but apparently not. Nevertheless, the real killer with the current system is that a 'Mech now has to compete with itself, as fitted with quirk-compliant builds, as well as other, higher-quality-in-general 'Mechs. The specificity of the quirks is a punch in the nuts to off-quirk variants.

The DRG-1N remains an excellent example. Its narrow-focus, AC/5-specific quirks are fantastic - to the point where a DRG-1N not making use of those quirks is drastically underperforming next to one that does. Gaussdragons basically get to go away in this system, unless we're somehow fortunate enough for one of the DRG variants to get some manner of Gauss Rifle upquirkage. Running a Gaussdragon just doesn't make sense when a dual AC/5 version of the same Dragon has such a crushing advantage over it.

If the DRG-1N's ballistics cooldown buffs were, say, 20% general and 30% AC/5, then the AC/5 version is still being emphasized. Pretty enormously emphasized, honestly - 30% cooldown is no joke. But the Gaussdragon guy still gets an also really powerful 20% cooldown boost to his own preferred weapon, which might be enough for him to forego the AC/5s in return for a build that better suits his abilities and preferred tactics with that 'Mech.

But a split of 0%/50% just makes it a complete no-brainer. Post November 4th, there just won't be Gaussdragon-1Ns anymore. Even a single AC/5 is going to be a better choice on that 'Mech in virtually all instances than a Gauss rifle would be, and frankly I don't recall anyone complaining that Gaussdragons were ruining the game. Kinda sucks that they're being excised from the game anyways, at least to me.

[Bishop Steiner]

Michael Abt, on 17 October 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

How many of you actually run the discussed mechs on a regular basis? Since i pretty much only run HBK's here is some of my data:

HBK-4G(F) - LBX10, 2MG, 3ML; 1036 matches, W/L 1.15, K/D 1.93
HBK-GI - AC20, 3ML; 401 matches, W/L 0.91, K/D 1.55

It is a comparison between "classic" AC20 and my alternative LBX10 loadout. Despite the general opinion that the LBX10 is "meh" and AC20 is "the way to go" to deal with clans my experience is different. The announced quirks for the 4G buff what i consider the weaker of my two builds, and that is the intention of introducing quirks in the first place.

If quirks bring back some old mechs onto the battlefield it will be a nice change. Maybe quirks will also teach some pilots to rethink their "T4/T5 mech = free kill" logic, or pay the price.

Exactly. Also, while not a HBK, if one is dead set on running an LB-X, boom, CN9-D is a 5o tonner built around that. 1 less laser, but missiles and speed (cuz it can XL well) if wanted.

Or you can still run it on the 4G (or 4H) and do well, just not with the bonuses of the 20.

bobF, on 17 October 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

The op is sadly correct. This cripples customization somewhat

No. It really doesn't.

It simply rewards those who play a chassis in it's intended role. And encourages the use of other chassis and variants for other roles. But you can still, penalty free, run whatever you could before.

[1453 R]

Sudden notion, and pertinent question:

All these "SRM-6 Cooldown -10%" buffs being thrown around do still work for the Artemis-equipped versions thereof, right?

If not, Russ might want to work on that. Like, quick-like.

[Tynan]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

It can be argued either way, which I thought I'd acknowledged but apparently not. Nevertheless, the real killer with the current system is that a 'Mech now has to compete with itself, as fitted with quirk-compliant builds, as well as other, higher-quality-in-general 'Mechs. The specificity of the quirks is a punch in the nuts to off-quirk variants.

The DRG-1N remains an excellent example. Its narrow-focus, AC/5-specific quirks are fantastic - to the point where a DRG-1N not making use of those quirks is drastically underperforming next to one that does. Gaussdragons basically get to go away in this system, unless we're somehow fortunate enough for one of the DRG variants to get some manner of Gauss Rifle upquirkage. Running a Gaussdragon just doesn't make sense when a dual AC/5 version of the same Dragon has such a crushing advantage over it.

If the DRG-1N's ballistics cooldown buffs were, say, 20% general and 30% AC/5, then the AC/5 version is still being emphasized. Pretty enormously emphasized, honestly - 30% cooldown is no joke. But the Gaussdragon guy still gets an also really powerful 20% cooldown boost to his own preferred weapon, which might be enough for him to forego the AC/5s in return for a build that better suits his abilities and preferred tactics with that 'Mech.

But a split of 0%/50% just makes it a complete no-brainer. Post November 4th, there just won't be Gaussdragon-1Ns anymore. Even a single AC/5 is going to be a better choice on that 'Mech in virtually all instances than a Gauss rifle would be, and frankly I don't recall anyone complaining that Gaussdragons were ruining the game. Kinda sucks that they're being excised from the game anyways, at least to me.

Completely agree on the Dragon. That's basically getting one solid build.

Personally, I'd like to see more in the HBK-model, with some general benefits and some specific, for the Tier 5s. It's a little tougher for the lower tiers, since you're giving them fewer quirks in general.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

It can be argued either way, which I thought I'd acknowledged but apparently not. Nevertheless, the real killer with the current system is that a 'Mech now has to compete with itself, as fitted with quirk-compliant builds, as well as other, higher-quality-in-general 'Mechs. The specificity of the quirks is a punch in the nuts to off-quirk variants.

The DRG-1N remains an excellent example. Its narrow-focus, AC/5-specific quirks are fantastic - to the point where a DRG-1N not making use of those quirks is drastically underperforming next to one that does. Gaussdragons basically get to go away in this system, unless we're somehow fortunate enough for one of the DRG variants to get some manner of Gauss Rifle upquirkage. Running a Gaussdragon just doesn't make sense when a dual AC/5 version of the same Dragon has such a crushing advantage over it.

Disagree. Yes in general the Gauss still underperforms to the dual ac5 in the 1N.

Unless one is by playstyle a Sniper. Then the range and punch of the Gauss means more than the fast fire of ac5s. BUT. The 1N was designed around an ac5, so it makes sense that weapon would be inherently a better match for the chassis than an ac10, or Gauss, neither of which the arm was ever designed to support in the first place.

And the point being...there are plenty of other chassis for a person to run if using Gauss. It's like picking a Catapult A1, then complaining it's a lousy ballistic mech. Well then drive a Jagermech instead. Not every chassis has to, or SHOULD, excel with every role or weapon. And some, will be more specialized than others.

And it's doubly bad to get upset with the quirks when we don't even know what the other ones are yet. For all we know, the 5N could get a Gauss quirk, and the 1C a triple ac2 bonus, etc.

And then, the answer is, if that "main weapon" is that impòrtant to your playstyle..that is the variant you focus on.


I'd far rather see different reasons to run ALL Dragons, then simply see the resurgence of the 1N.

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

Sudden notion, and pertinent question:

All these "SRM-6 Cooldown -10%" buffs being thrown around do still work for the Artemis-equipped versions thereof, right?

If not, Russ might want to work on that. Like, quick-like.

A good question, though artemis is a tack on, and doesn't affect RoF, so should be unaffected.

[bobF]

"No, it really doesn't.”

Yes, it really does. Even amatuer hour pvpers know to go with a spec that comes prebuffed by the devs. Choosing anything else gimps the build, because the reward from using the endorsed build often completely outweighs anything you get from off builds. Off builds are always higher skillcap in every PvP game, so what's everyone most likely to do? Build a spec around the buffs.

" herpaderp, you can still mount whatever you want"

Exactly why they are being buffed, because the custom builds on those t5 mechs were so viable, amirite? Role warfare evolves out if the things I mentioned before, conveniently unaddressed in your rebuttal. But hey, if different mechs in your tdm arena really make that big a difference to you, this really must be your first PvP game.

Edited by bobF, 17 October 2014 - 03:28 PM.

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

Disagree. Yes in general the Gauss still underperforms to the dual ac5 in the 1N.

Unless one is by playstyle a Sniper. Then the range and punch of the Gauss means more than the fast fire of ac5s. BUT. The 1N was designed around an ac5, so it makes sense that weapon would be inherently a better match for the chassis than an ac10, or Gauss, neither of which the arm was ever designed to support in the first place.

And the point being...there are plenty of other chassis for a person to run if using Gauss. It's like picking a Catapult A1, then complaining it's a lousy ballistic mech. Well then drive a Jagermech instead. Not every chassis has to, or SHOULD, excel with every role or weapon. And some, will be more specialized than others.

And it's doubly bad to get upset with the quirks when we don't even know what the other ones are yet. For all we know, the 5N could get a Gauss quirk, and the 1C a triple ac2 bonus, etc.

And then, the answer is, if that "main weapon" is that impòrtant to your playstyle..that is the variant you focus on.


I'd far rather see different reasons to run ALL Dragons, then simply see the resurgence of the 1N.

No amount of "I'ma Sniper!" in all of existence is enough to offset a 50% cooldown bonus for a weapon which is halfway to sniper weapon itself. Dual AC/5 will put out 10 damage per shot more than twice as often as a Gauss rifle puts out fifteen damage per shot, and only at extreme ranges does the Gauss' projectile velocity benefits matter. Sure, you can do a Gaussdragon, but it's making the same choice you're already making when you choose to drop in a Dragon instead of a JagerMook or a Crapaphract all over again. You stink compared to those two, and now you stink even more compared to your own bloody 'Mech except with quirk-appropriate loadout.

Than and there is not one. Single. 'Mech. in the heavy lineup (that isn't a 50-dollar Protector) which comes stock with a Gauss Rifle, which means there will very likely not be one single heavy 'Mech in the IS queue that comes with Gauss rifle quirks. So if you like gauss rifles...you're just completely SOL, I suppose. Same for medium 'Mechs, which don't have a single C-bill variant with a stock Gauss rifle. Even assaults only have, what? One each of Victor, Highlander, and Fatlas?

Man, it's about to really suck to like Gauss rifles in this game.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

A good question, though artemis is a tack on, and doesn't affect RoF, so should be unaffected.

The ASRM-4 is considered an entirely separate item in a player's inventory. It should be unaffected, but that doesn't mean it will be

[Tynan]

bobF, on 17 October 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

"No, it really doesn't.”

Yes, it really does. Even amatuer hour pvpers know to go with a spec that comes prebuffed by the devs. Choosing anything else gimps the build, because the reward from using the endorsed build often completely outweighs anything you get from off builds. Off builds are always higher skillcap in every PvP game, so what's everyone most likely to do? Build a spec around the buffs.

" herpaderp, you can still mount whatever you want"

Exactly why they are being buffed, because the custom builds on those t5 mechs were so viable, amirite? Role warfare evolves out if the things I mentioned before, conveniently unaddressed in your rebuttal. But hey, if different mechs in your tdm arena really make that big a difference to you, this really must be your first PvP game.

This really depends on the buffs, doesn't it? I mean, I know I keep using the HBK buffs as an example, but that historically that thing's been a really bad mech for XL engines because of the hunch. You could argue the the RT toughness buffs make XLs much more viable. You could, say, got PPCs + XL or LLs + XL because of the energy weapon and armor buffs.

But it also got an AC/20 buff, which would make using an XL impossible.

Yes, the Dragon-5N changes pigeonhole things, but not all of that changes are bad in that way.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 17 October 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

No amount of "I'ma Sniper!" in all of existence is enough to offset a 50% cooldown bonus for a weapon which is halfway to sniper weapon itself. Dual AC/5 will put out 10 damage per shot more than twice as often as a Gauss rifle puts out fifteen damage per shot, and only at extreme ranges does the Gauss' projectile velocity benefits matter. Sure, you can do a Gaussdragon, but it's making the same choice you're already making when you choose to drop in a Dragon instead of a JagerMook or a Crapaphract all over again. You stink compared to those two, and now you stink even more compared to your own bloody 'Mech except with quirk-appropriate loadout.

Than and there is not one. Single. 'Mech. in the heavy lineup (that isn't a 50-dollar Protector) which comes stock with a Gauss Rifle, which means there will very likely not be one single heavy 'Mech in the IS queue that comes with Gauss rifle quirks. So if you like gauss rifles...you're just completely SOL, I suppose. Same for medium 'Mechs, which don't have a single C-bill variant with a stock Gauss rifle. Even assaults only have, what? One each of Victor, Highlander, and Fatlas?

Man, it's about to really suck to like Gauss rifles in this game.




The ASRM-4 is considered an entirely separate item in a player's inventory. It should be unaffected, but that doesn't mean it will be

There Is not one, not ONE Locust that comes with an ER L Laser, or Centurion with SRMS.

Yet we got buffs for both.

Hence there will almost certainly be one heavy with Gauss buffs. Probably be a JAger. The real question will be whether or not they pooch it and pick the Firebrand.

But again, preemptive QQ is kinda silly man.

Also heard the "sucks to like Gauss" before. Then the meta changed and everyone found a way to like Gauss again, with the same crappy charge mechanic. Gauss is too good for minor things to diminish it's place.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 October 2014 - 03:36 PM.

[bobF]

Sure it depends on the buffs. So far all I've read are mostly weapon and armor tweaks. Its just different flavors of the same thing.

Now, if they did something daring and creative like buff/debuff electronic warfare equipment or alter how equipment functions for certain mechs chassis's, we would see some roles form, even in tdm gameplay. I reserve a small amount of optimism that these quirks are really about future roles in cw, but my cynicism quickly dismisses it

[Spades Kincaid]

As I said previously, I'd like to see the JJ/ECM penalty of removing a quirk discarded. Those were already accounted for by the Tiering.



I'd also prefer to see no double-dipping on quirks. Using that Dragon-1N for example:

It is, in my opinion, more valuable than 2 separate AC5 quirks. Which isn't really proper either. Getting 2 quirks should be getting 2 quirks; of relatively equal benefit across the board.

50% (25% x 2) Cooldown on AC5 is a more influential benefit than mixing:

25% Cooldown and 25% Projectile Speed
or
25% Cooldown and 25% Range

Because of how cool running AC5's are. I'm not saying it's OP, I'm saying that's not balanced application of quirks. So rather than pick and choose when it's okay, just don't ever double-dip.

This also ties in a bit with 1453 R's issue. The AC5 is still getting full quirks and still reflecting that as the designed weapon for use. But now if you want to run a Gauss? You're already choosing the Speed/Range weapon. If you want to use an AC10? Well those Speed/Range stats weren't as important to you anyway. You aren't 'giving up' as much to use something other than AC5. In other words, it helps stop a quirk from being so intense that it's in a sense overwhelming the advantages of other weapon choices.

[Ghogiel]

He's right in that I think it'll kill diversity, perhaps not battlefield wide but within chassis certainly. Anyone not taking optimised mechs is playing to lose and like just fodder anyway but even scrubs aren't always chumps.

[DocBach]

Ghogiel, on 17 October 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

He's right in that I think it'll kill diversity, perhaps not battlefield wide but within chassis certainly. Anyone not taking optimised mechs is playing to lose and like just fodder anyway but even scrubs aren't always chumps.

so now if they take the optimized build, at least they'll have some perks for doing so, where before they were just completely cannon fodder for Mad Cats.

[Ghogiel]

DocBach, on 17 October 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

so now if they take the optimized build, at least they'll have some perks for doing so, where before they were just completely cannon fodder for Mad Cats.

Probably still will be fodder. If they aren't, then whatever very specific min/maxed build that comes out of all this will be T1 meta.

Edited by Ghogiel, 17 October 2014 - 03:56 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

There Is not one, not ONE Locust that comes with an ER L Laser, or Centurion with SRMS.

Yet we got buffs for both.

Hence there will almost certainly be one heavy with Gauss buffs. Probably be a JAger. The real question will be whether or not they pooch it and pick the Firebrand.

But again, preemptive QQ is kinda silly man.

Also heard the "sucks to like Gauss" before. Then the meta changed and everyone found a way to like Gauss again, with the same crappy charge mechanic. Gauss is too good for minor things to diminish it's place.

IDK... it was only talked about in the town hall meeting of adding a quirk for a ERLL on the one locust... from my understanding from what others have told me. That doe not mean it will happen. And as for the quirk for range on the SRM-4 on the CN9-D... looking back at the CN9-D, i really dont see how Russ would give it a quirk for a SRM-4 pack when it comes with a ALRM-10. Maybe thats a typo that someone should ask him about.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 17 October 2014 - 03:58 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yoseful Mallad, on 17 October 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

IDK... it was only talked about in the town hall meeting of adding a quirk for a ERLL on the one locust... from my understanding from what others have told me. That doe not mean it will happen. And as for the quirk for range on the SRM-4 on the CN9-D... looking back at the CN9-D, i really dont see how Russ would give it a quirk for a SRM-4 pack when it comes with a ALRM-10. Maybe thats a typo that someone should ask him about.

I did.

He said some choices were made wit bias toward what made the mech more useful in general, not always what they start with. I would've preferred the LRMs, but I am in the minority. But then, I tend to run my CN9D stock save for DHS pretty much,anyhow.

[Joe Mallad]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

I did.

He said some choices were made wit bias toward what made the mech more useful in general, not always what they start with. I would've preferred the LRMs, but I am in the minority. But then, I tend to run my CN9D stock save for DHS pretty much,anyhow.

oh ok, thanks.

[Mothykins]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

I did.

He said some choices were made wit bias toward what made the mech more useful in general, not always what they start with. I would've preferred the LRMs, but I am in the minority. But then, I tend to run my CN9D stock save for DHS pretty much,anyhow.

I agree that the logic was sound, but buffing intended systems would have probably been better over all. The Locust, for example, has a really high learning curve, and tops around 300 damage a match. Buffing that single Medium laser and the machine guns would have probably doubled that output and put it well within usable range, especially with the maneuverability buffs that he mentioned (Accel and Deccel, which translates into being able to pull "ebrake turns")

Even if he buffed machine guns fire rate by 50% (Look at the Centy. 40% cooldown), bringing them up to 1.2 DPs, and then gave duration and cooldown buffs to the medium laser by that +20%, (Bringing you past Medium Pulse) You'll have more potential Damage output than even a 50% cut duration and 50% recycle ERLL.

Feels like it could have been done.

I know I'm chirping up a storm here, but ugh, it's gonna bug me.

Pun intended.


EDIT: So, yeah, probably should have done a blanket buff on the Centys missiles, IMHO, but i was trying to be more specific and i have bug on the brain. I think i need to cool my Jets and come back when i'm not having some sort of fixation.

Edited by Cavale, 17 October 2014 - 04:27 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cavale, on 17 October 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

I agree that the logic was sound, but buffing intended systems would have probably been better over all. The Locust, for example, has a really high learning curve, and tops around 300 damage a match. Buffing that single Medium laser and the machine guns would have probably doubled that output and put it well within usable range, especially with the maneuverability buffs that he mentioned (Accel and Deccel, which translates into being able to pull "ebrake turns")

Even if he buffed machine guns fire rate by 50% (Look at the Centy. 40% cooldown), bringing them up to 1.2 DPs, and then gave duration and cooldown buffs to the medium laser by that +20%, (Bringing you past Medium Pulse) You'll have more potential Damage output than even a 50% cut duration and 50% recycle ERLL.

Feels like it could have been done.

I know I'm chirping up a storm here, but ugh, it's gonna bug me.

Pun intended.

Buffing MGs and a single MLaser would land it's damage in the 600 range?

Dude. That would require like buffing both systems by 200%.

Do think the LCT needs access to the 200 engine though, for sure.

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

[Mothykins]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

Buffing MGs and a single MLaser would land it's damage in the 600 range?

Dude. That would require like buffing both systems by 200%.

Not necessarily. With the medium Laser, a lot of damage potential is lost from range and missed shots/partial shots from the beam duration. Look on your stats page.; the damage total to hit total doesn't align 100%. Shorter beam duration increases damage way more than faster fire rate on lasers; this is why I tend to cram SPL in my mechs (Hello Raven. Jenner. Usually the Locust) The Locust is also getting blanket range buffs as well, if I recall. This increases effective range, which, if you recall, means less dropped off damage at longer ranges.

These seemingly small changes have a huge impact in magnifying overall damage. This is why when I pilot my 3L with 3 SPL and 2 SRM4 my damage hits ~800 more often than not. The sorter beam duration on the SPL gives me much more focused hits with less wasted damage. Now imagine if I could hit you from another 200m back.


EDIT: For example, average damage per hit on my Medium Lasers is 2.5 damage. SPL is 1.9. The full damage of a Medium laser is 5. Full damage of a SPL is 3.4. SPL is ~5% more effective at delivering its full damage.

Edited by Cavale, 17 October 2014 - 04:50 PM.