963 replies to this topic

[Glythe]

Hatachi, on 18 October 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

I understand how people like the super open customization, but variants really stop the need from the "original" variant needing to be everything.

Variants overall are different enough due to hard point restrictions so that each version doesn't need specific quirks. I think anyone playing 3 dragons with the same load out is guilty of playing the meta game. Please don't hold us hostage with your meta game limitations.

JeanMarks, on 18 October 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

i can't see how buffs that we have been asking for months and months will piss off everyone.
The only one that will be pissed off are the usual whiners that protest every single change.

At the end of the day these buffs are designed to make certain IS mechs playable right? Ask yourself to what end are they supposed to be playable against. Sure this might make the HBK be viable against the centurion but it will still be junk against clan tech.

I argue this is the wrong way to do the buffs because we all have a healthy garage full of mechs. Say you have hunchbacks 2,4 and 6 from the smurfy listing. Well if you get unlucky none of the buffs will help the way you want to play the mech. So now you have to buy mechs 1, 3 and 7 if you want an advantage to how you like to play these mechs. That's kind of a jerk move considering customers may have paid real money for mechs. This is the kind of thing that needs to be done on the front end like fixed hard points that never change. Doing it on the back end after you have their money feels underhanded. Conversely blanket buffs that affect all mechs would cause zero issues from a PR standpoint. Every mech gets better and the ones that are extra bad get more buffs to compensate. That would have made everyone happy.

If this isn't a cash grab they are more than welcome to offer a trade in program but I don't see that happening.

[Duke Nedo]

At this point it's mainly speculation anyways... we'd better make a new thread when it's live called "My favorite builds that became less competetive by the weapon-specific quirks" and take it from there.

[Widowmaker1981]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Actually they won't.

They will simply encourage people who want to minmax to use chassis that are already intended for said role to use those chassis, instead of generic, insert chassis here building.

It's actually a sensible way to encourage people to look at mechs like the HBK-4G, 4H and GI and instead of running the same exact generic minmaxxed build on all 3, actually maximizing the ones that suit your playstyle in their intended roles. (another good example being the AWS-9M vs the AWS-8Q, where you will see hotter and faster ERPPC vs slower but cooler PPCs)

But just as most people can't actually figure out how sized hardpoints would increase chassis diversity and viability, I don't expect most to grasp this, either.

actually, i think this a is a MUCH better way of accomplishing the same thing as sized hardpoints - this way you are steered into using mechs in their intended way, but the exact build is still completely up to you. The Hunchback isnt a good example if this since an AC20 is so hard to fit there is only one way to do it, but other mechs with say PPC style bonuses, the number of PPCs, where they are etc. is still totally your choice, not essentially forced like with sized hardpoints.

Im a big supporter of this, im very anti sized hardpoints

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Why weapon quirks? For that we have modules. I would have prefered just General Quirks for the mechs to improve them. I fear that 100% of my IS builds are for the garbage when this will go life.... and I m fed up with rebuilding. I fear that I will Keep em as they are...never toughing them again...or just sell em and get plenty Mechbays for Clanmechs...

[Widowmaker1981]

the way i look at it is this:

first, i decide what kind of thing i want to play.. i say medium with an AC20 - then i look at the available mechs and see my best option is a Yen Lo Wang, or a Hunchback 4G. i then build one of those (and exactly how is still 100% customisable), or save for one if i dont have it. Same goes for any other weapon/class.

This is much better than i decide i want to play a medium, i realise that shadowhawks are the best medium, so i build one of those with whatever weapons i like, because as a player i still have all the options of playstyles i want, and now ill see a huge amount more diversity on the battlefield.

[Tzion]

A couple of thoughts. First of all I really like this new quirk system that they are looking at doing. For starters the system benefits those mechs that are played less in competition let alone in normal games. There is a nice benefit to the mech itself and then either specific weapon quirks or general weapon quirks.

Something that I'm not sure if people noticed is that the quirks are reduced based on the tier ranking. Tier 5 mechs (arguably the worse mechs in the game) get the biggest buffs while the Tier 2 mechs appear to only recieve one quirk. Based on that assumption than I believe we will probably not see any quirks at all for the tier one mechs. That means no quirks to the DS which is a great plan in my mind.

The fact that the worst mechs in the game will be getting buffed and hopefully made more competitive. Will we see Lords dropping with an awesome, dragon, or a hunback? I don't know and honestly I don't care. They will do their own evalutation and if they determine that one of these new designs works better than they will drop with it. Otherwise it will just make the enviroment more difficult for your min/maxers since they will probably be seeing mechs that they haven't had to fight in a long time and those mechs will do more damage. Thats awesome.

One other thing that I think needs to be mentioned is that each of these mechs will be good in different situations. The problem is that people are so used to what they believe is the correct way to play a mech that they get upset when that specific way is not buffed. For example, going by the OPs idea that the hunchback should get general buffs to balistics like they will with lasers. Lets assume that they were to use the same numbers for the general balistic buffs that they are currently proposing, think of all of the complaints that people will have about a guass carrying hunchback hitting for more damage at longer ranges than other mechs while having a higher DPS at the same time. I am pretty sure that my favorite mech (JM6-DD)'s quirks will not fully support my current build. I honestly don't mind though as long as I get some side torso quirks. Depending on the weapon quirks I will probably still stick with my current build even though its not the best build possible with that mech. I honestly don't play this game to have the best build which PGI is supporting by giving general quirks.

To repeat and expand upon a point made by someone else. The only people this quirk pass won't likely help is the competitive players. Hopefully the tier 1 mechs won't recieve any quirks (unless they are nerfs ex. less thrust / less height for jj on DS). No quirks for tier 1 mechs would be good because they are already the best of their respective weight class and therefore do not need to be buffed since that would just keep them at the same quality as they already are.

Finally, as far as how making these mechs more competitive will benefit anyone against the clans. This should really be obvious, any buffs to IS reduces the clans advantages and helps to level the playing field. PGI might have to reevaluate the clan mechs after CW to make sure that they are in the right place but that can be done by reevaluating clan quirks. The truth of the matter is that there will be tons of complaints initially and then people will figure out what they want to run and then it will be time for the clans to whine that IS is OP. This happens in every game with every change. A build gets hit the people using that build are annoyed and either stop using it/quit/ or figure out a new build. Either way this system really can't hurt anything and will only benefit the game.

[Tzion]

Marc von der Heide, on 18 October 2014 - 03:04 AM, said:

Why weapon quirks? For that we have modules. I would have prefered just General Quirks for the mechs to improve them. I fear that 100% of my IS builds are for the garbage when this will go life.... and I m fed up with rebuilding. I fear that I will Keep em as they are...never toughing them again...or just sell em and get plenty Mechbays for Clanmechs...

Chassis specific weapon quirks are great because it provides a base boost to those weapons that can then be added to by using weapon mods. For example, the hunchback with the ac 20 quirks can then get even better by using the ac 20 weapon mods for say range and reload. As far as having to redesign your mech, you are not required to change your mechs and your current build will still be as good as it is currently with any added general quirks. The only things you would be missing out on are weapon specific quirks and that is a decision you will have to make. For example, even if they were to boose the ac20s on the JM6-DD I would more than likely still not use ac20s on that mech. I personally do not like the AC20 so I won't use it. Will I be missing out on potential benefits? Absolutely, but its a decision that I have made not to use the AC20. PGI is not forcing me to use the AC20.

In reality, if they really wanted to do what the OP thinks they are doing there is an easier way to accomplish that goal. They could always inforce sized hard points and make those sized hard points be equal to the lore builds for each chassis. That would effectively destroy all choice.

[Hatachi]

Glythe, on 18 October 2014 - 02:13 AM, said:

Variants overall are different enough due to hard point restrictions so that each version doesn't need specific quirks. I think anyone playing 3 dragons with the same load out is guilty of playing the meta game. Please don't hold us hostage with your meta game limitations.




At the end of the day these buffs are designed to make certain IS mechs playable right? Ask yourself to what end are they supposed to be playable against. Sure this might make the HBK be viable against the centurion but it will still be junk against clan tech.

I argue this is the wrong way to do the buffs because we all have a healthy garage full of mechs. Say you have hunchbacks 2,4 and 6 from the smurfy listing. Well if you get unlucky none of the buffs will help the way you want to play the mech. So now you have to buy mechs 1, 3 and 7 if you want an advantage to how you like to play these mechs. That's kind of a jerk move considering customers may have paid real money for mechs. This is the kind of thing that needs to be done on the front end like fixed hard points that never change. Doing it on the back end after you have their money feels underhanded. Conversely blanket buffs that affect all mechs would cause zero issues from a PR standpoint. Every mech gets better and the ones that are extra bad get more buffs to compensate. That would have made everyone happy.

If this isn't a cash grab they are more than welcome to offer a trade in program but I don't see that happening.

I honestly don't get how you find making more mechs viable and different mechs better equipped for different roles a cash grab. By that logic changing mechs after release, be it hitboxes, quirks, or in an extreme case, changes to hard points, after release is sacrosanct. The reasoning being people could have payed money for them. To me it's like playing Street Fighter and complaining that they removed a combo link in a new version. You payed for the version and disliked the change without knowing it was made before the purchase; they don't advertise every minute change to every character. However, they felt it was better for the game at large.

My main point was yes, you can play a Hunchback G with several light ACs. You still can if you want. Other mechs that do exist in the game at this moment carry lighter ACs standard and were built with them as their intended role. An example is how most Blackjack variants carry double AC2s. The Centurion D, Trebuchet 7K, and Wolverine 6R are all mediums mechs who carry AC5s standard. I'm not including Shadowhawks since they're the best IS mediums at the moment according to the chart, but every one of them can as well. Is it bad to try to push them to be more prevalent platforms for the use of those weapons?

You say don't hold the meta game hostage by playing all Dragon variants the exact same way. Players are going to dictate how the mechs are handled once they're on the field. It's kind of a form of social Darwinism. If you want to see variety on the field it kind of sucks, but that's how things will naturally gravitate if no incentive is given otherwise. It's up to Piranha to give those incentives to play them differently, and that's what they're trying to do. Don't be angry at the players for playing the meta game; it's a misdirection of you attention and will solve nothing. I hate to use a cliche phrase to sum up this paragraph, but don't hate the player hate the game.

*EDIT* Edit is due to some of the sentences having confusing comma structure and needed to be reorganized. I bet it's still wrong. My English teacher would be ashamed.

Edited by Hatachi, 18 October 2014 - 03:58 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Widowmaker1981, on 18 October 2014 - 03:11 AM, said:

the way i look at it is this:

first, i decide what kind of thing i want to play.. i say medium with an AC20 - then i look at the available mechs and see my best option is a Yen Lo Wang, or a Hunchback 4G. i then build one of those (and exactly how is still 100% customisable), or save for one if i dont have it. Same goes for any other weapon/class.

This is much better than i decide i want to play a medium, i realise that shadowhawks are the best medium, so i build one of those with whatever weapons i like, because as a player i still have all the options of playstyles i want, and now ill see a huge amount more diversity on the battlefield.

Exactly this.

But the general view is: "But I want my Shadowhawk to do everything better than everything else because I like ShadowHawks!". Or insert whichever chassis you choose.

If they buff everything, they buff nothing.

[Macksheen]

It would be nice to see a hard point update at the same time. But while that may ease some folk's minds more will likely get bent.

[Strong Female Role Model]

I am sure that the quirks will be well tested and balanced so as not to promote more pigeonholed builds on mechs, and that they will simply help bring some of the lesser played mechs to a more balanced power level.

[Bishop Steiner]

Macksheen, on 18 October 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:

It would be nice to see a hard point update at the same time. But while that may ease some folk's minds more will likely get bent.

wait, people get bent out of shape over nothing on these forums!?!?!?!?!

[Hatachi]

Before we get a hard point overhaul, I want my proper missile bays on my 80 LRM Awesome. When I reenact a Macross fight, I want to see the fear in their eyes as all 80 missiles rain down in one massive blob.

*joking*

[oldradagast]

Will it discourage some customization? Probably.

Will it boost bottom-tier mechs so they might compete and perhaps bring some more diverse loads to the battlefield? Probably?

Those two should balance each other out, I think, though time will tell, of course.

[Livewyr]

Honestly...

This does not kill customization at all. (Unlike those silly Hardpoint sizes people keep trying to throw out there )

Leaving all mechanical options open, while boosting specific weapon stats per chassis ENCOURAGES using the mech for what it was designed for. It does not say "if you run something different, you will fail."

A: The T2+ mechs are all getting general boosts (like health)
B: Some mechs are all getting general heat boosts for weapon classes
C: Some further mechs are getting specific weapon boosts.
You want to run PPCs? You can do it on a Stalker. You can do it BETTER on an AWS.

I personally think this is one of the best routes PGI has taken toward encouraging canon builds within the game.
(I am hoping the clans get something similar, but to a lesser degree, because with the omnipod system, the only reasons to own more than 1 of a chassis is either a CT hardpoint, or just not wanting to change around the mech to have multiple builds.)

Edited by Livewyr, 18 October 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Josef Nader]

FFS, even if you take all of the ballistics off of the HBK-4G, you're still left with an awesome shield torso and better laser cooldowns. If you want to mount an AC/10, the 4H is calling your name. If you want to mount a bunch of AC/2s or AC/5s, there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Your hunch will be super hard to knock out and your support lasers will be awesome. Just because it won't be super rapid fire or longer range doesn't mean that your current build is getting nerfed. It will get better, as the general perks will buff your vulnerable RT and your lasers no matter what's on it.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Not correct. The value of builds will change with this.
When all mechs improve, but your builds not, you are not competetive anymore. This means that you have to change too or you loose.

[KraftySOT]

28 pages and I explained this back on page 2 with Russ quoting it.

Good lord.

Marc von der Heide, on 18 October 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Not correct. The value of builds will change with this.
When all mechs improve, but your builds not, you are not competetive anymore. This means that you have to change too or you loose.

Your build wasnt competitive before. People seem to keep forgetting that. Just because you never happened to find yourself infront of my Banshee, doesnt meant that your build is good. You will eventually run across a Jager, Banshee, Dire, or Doomcrow built correctly, and die a horrible flaming death as you spit out 2 DPS while the meta builds rule the waves.

If you had a bad build before because "customization", you can still have a bad build after quirks because "customization". Nothing changes.

Now if you WANT to start competing, theres going to be a few more chassis to pick from as well as variants.

[bobF]

Alek Ituin, on 17 October 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Except this is a push towards BT canon. Mechs being used for what they were built for (with some exceptions).

Everything else is still on the "DO WANT" list. PGI is working on CW, and then they'll move on to the next thing. This mech customization isn't freedom, it's the opposite. Because Mechs have no diversity, they're boiled down to hardpoint locations and configurations, nothing more. Pilots in lore didn't just go "Ehh, I don't like the hardpoints, I'll go stuff two Guass Rifles on a Jaegermech instead because 'freedumb of customization".

Your free customization has led to our current metas, and like I said before, it's been proven that this model doesn't work. So basically, if you want a game where every Mech plays the same, with only 3-4 possible builds... HAWKEN is for you, plain and simple. It's exactly what you apparently want in a game, regardless of the arguments to the contrary that you present ad nauseam. IMO, It's you who doesn't understand the fact that Mechs were built with intended roles in mind, and these quirks are pushing most of them back to said intended roles.

Are there outliers with bad quirk sets? Indubitably. Is that to say that all quirk sets are bad? Not by far.

So for somebody who's trying to cite lore for reasons as to why we shouldn't get closer to lore, you're doing a piss-poor job of backing your case.

I'm not the guy using lore as some kind of evidence, you are. My post blatantly called out people citing lore to endorse this tweak as not only disingenuous, but pretty stupid. You're really going to invoke lore to defend your position, when this game is nearly DEVOID of any lore or immersion, save the house/clan symbols next to our names, and names of mechs? Like I originally suggested, please, stfu.

So with the 10-12 viable builds that will filter out after this change, that will = "diversity," and lore is satisfied because hunchbacks are now being used to play the single tdm gamemode. Truly, your ideas are innovative. I like the part where you say the current meta is "proven" not to work instead of admit you can't adapt to ppfld. Perhaps Hawken was too much of a challenge for you.

I also like how mounting different weapons in tdm adds up in your head to "roles." That's cute. Everyone has only one role, and that's tdm hunter/killer, because THE GAME DOESN'T REWARD people using lights and mediums for anything other than tdm hunter/killer. The sooner your challenged intellect accepts and absorbs this fact, the sooner you and the other mouthbreathing cheerleaders can detach your lips from PGI's ass.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

@KraftySOT: Lol...Muhaaa. Sorry