11 replies to this topic

[Hoax415]

The current quirk pass is not without some flaws.

What we know or think we know:
# of Quirks = a T5 gets 5 weapon quirks, 4 gets 4, 3 gets 3, 2 gets 2.

Value of Quirks is based entirely of Tier:
(Weapon Class / Specific Weapon System)
T2 = 4% / 10%
T3 = 8% / 15%
T4 = 12% / 20%
T5 = 16% / 25%

1) The specific weapon buffs are larger numbers than general weapon buffs.
-This could easily be reversed. That big thread saying it kills customization is sensationalist garbage but it is an odd choice to make the weapon specific buffs the bigger of the two.

2) The buffs are seemingly not balanced. All T5 buffs aren't created equal.

We know that there will be quirks that increase range, decrease heat, decrease beam duration, increase projectile speed and decrease weapon cooldown.

The problem is that right now it looks like any buff = 20% at T4 and 25% at T5.

That's based off the 3 variants we have seen, which obviously isn't enough to be 100% sure of that but for now lets make the assumption.

I'd like to see more detailed thinking in the numbers. Maybe it is more detailed but the numbers we have seen now make it look as if the values are based entirely on what tier the mech is.

We can start to infer/guess that the values are as follows:
(Weapon Class / Specific Weapon System)
T2 = 4%/10%
T3 = 8%/15%
T4 = 12%/20%
T5 = 16%/25%

Should the cooldown reduction quirk be the exact same value regardless of which weapon? Isn't a faster firing AC20 more powerful than a faster firing Large Laser? Shouldn't we see the AC20 t5 cooldown quirk be a smaller percentage than the t5 LL quirk?

When its not we can basically make a tier list of weapon quirks, its not exact because obviously how many of a weapon you can mount drastically changes how powerful a quirk is.

So roughly speaking best weapons to have quirks for:
AC20, Gauss, PPC > AC5, Large Laser, LPL, SRM6, ERLL, UAC5, LBX10, AC10(if you can mount 2+) > AC10(single mount) SRM4 > SRM2, ML, MPL, SPL, LRM, SSRM > SL > MG, AC2, Flamer

But if AC20 quirks were less drastic than SL quirks...

i.e. T5 Small Laser Cooldown = -25% while T5 AC20 Cooldown = 10%.

Its not such a "bad" thing if the variant focuses on something other than the best Ballistic or best Energy etc.

Because it doesn't work that way people are already rightfully pointing out that the AC10 quirk Hunch shouldn't have been on the same tier as the AC20 Hunch. I loved the tier list but the way it works now a lot of those tiers are wrong. AC10 quirk Hunch is squarely T5 territory but the AC20 Hunch is getting the same buffs to a better weapon so it should be T4 easily.


tl;dr it'd be nice if it felt there was a little more attention to detail and attempt to make it so every Tier-5 weapon quirk was intended to be "close" to equal value.


If they did that and flipped the general vs weap specific values around those two things might improve the post quirk pass build diversity within specific variants and the number of variants considered "viable".

Edited by Hoax415, 17 October 2014 - 09:51 AM.

[King Arthur IV]

here's to hoping they tweak it so we get "equal value"

the chances of getting it perfect the first time round is unlikely anyway.

Edited by King Arthur IV, 17 October 2014 - 01:04 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Hoax415, on 17 October 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

1) The specific weapon buffs are larger numbers than general weapon buffs.
-This could easily be reversed. That big thread saying it kills customization is sensationalist garbage but it is an odd choice to make the weapon specific buffs the bigger of the two.

I'd argue that it would make no sense for general buffs to be larger than specific buffs. General buffs are incredibly powerful, since they apply to all members of a category. Specific buffs are severely limited, since they only apply if you bring the specific weapon in question. Thus making general buffs lower and specific buffs higher in general seems like the only reasonable thing to do.

[Hoffenstein]

I'm not seeing ANY flaws in this quirk pass, seeing as it hasn't even been implemented yet. I'll wait a week or two before prematurely passing judgement.

[Hoax415]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 17 October 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

I'd argue that it would make no sense for general buffs to be larger than specific buffs. General buffs are incredibly powerful, since they apply to all members of a category. Specific buffs are severely limited, since they only apply if you bring the specific weapon in question. Thus making general buffs lower and specific buffs higher in general seems like the only reasonable thing to do.

General buffs are no "more" powerful they just have wider application. They are more powerful in the sense that they can apply to say a Large and Medium laser at the same time but overall the difference in "power" is quite negligible. The power level of a mech using the specific weapon system is the same if the values are flipped but the pilots who decide to use an "alternative" build are slightly stronger if the values are flipped.

But it doesn't even matter considering now that we've seen 16 or so examples of quirks its obvious that General Buffs are actually much more rare than many were expecting from previous comments by Russ. Instead of it being most mechs have General buffs and only low tier mechs with lots of quirks have Specific Weapon buffs its actually more the opposite.

Mainly on T5 mechs have general weapon buffs and around half of the variants posted today show zero general weapon buffs at all.

Edited by Hoax415, 17 October 2014 - 02:05 PM.

[Prezimonto]

The largest flaw I see is that the quirk pass still greatly limits lower tier mechs by balancing them for only one role.

And that IS A GOOD THING.

However the quirk system, as implemented, preserves all the reasons Tier 1 mechs are currently Tier 1, without giving them a reason to customize outside of meta specific builds/roles. So while "bad" mechs might now be good at one or two builds, "good" mechs might be good through a variety of builds.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Hoax415, on 17 October 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Isn't a faster firing AC20 more powerful than a faster firing Large Laser? Shouldn't we see the AC20 t5 cooldown quirk be a smaller percentage than the t5 LL quirk?

the AC20 Hunch is getting the same buffs to a better weapon so it should be T4 easily.

Large lasers ( they are usually run in pairs ) and ac10's are just as good as an ac20, they have a longer range skirmish role. Ac20 is a short range brawling weapon. Saying one is better than the other is not true and silly, as much as I prefer the ac20 myself.

[Hoax415]

No they aren't at all just as good.

Why aren't 2x LL as good as AC20?
-2 damage
Its a laser (so you need to stay on target not fire and forget)
+8 heat

LL are good and you can def argue that on a LL boat (3+) type mech that the quirks for LL become more powerful than a single AC20 mech having AC20 quirks. But the second we are talking AC40 setups, its not close again, AC40 is just exactly what you want in terms of pinpoint alpha and heat.

There is a reason that all the AC40 mechs are T3 or higher and plenty of mechs that can mount 2xLL are T5 or T4. Come on now.

As for AC10's, dude you did not just say that 2x AC10 is as good as AC20. Please stop. That is so ignorant and foolish. You can't possibly really think that.

AC10 sucks. It sucked on the TT, it sucks now in MWO. Its a niche as hell weapon system that rarely is best for any build. Its just a bad combination of crit slots, tonnage and damage. You almost always want either 2xAC5 or AC20 or Gauss instead. In fact maybe always.

I don't believe there is a single competitive build that has ever used the AC10 in MWO. For a reason.

Its not even on the UAC5 or AC2's level of having brief moments where they were considered great.

Edited by Hoax415, 17 October 2014 - 07:38 PM.

[Mercules]

Hoax415, on 17 October 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

As for AC10's, dude you did not just say that 2x AC10 is as good as AC20. Please stop. That is so ignorant and foolish.

You are correct, if you have the tonnage they are better. You get better range, if they are in different locations then you can lose an arm/torso and still have a solid weapon to fight with, faster projectile speed, faster cooldown so higher RoF/DPS, and they do the same damage and heat if fired paired, and more shots per ton. The only issue is the amount of weight and critical slots devoted.

[Hoax415]

So the only issue is the most important thing that faces any weapon system?

How effective a weapon loadout is using X tonnage and X slots (if you are slot limited) is the basis of any analysis of what is an optimal weapon loadout.

So yes in some pretend world where you can fit any B weapon in one location but not an AC20 in the other location you could consider a AC10x2 setup... Maybe. Because the problem is that we're talking 24 tons for the same damage AC20 does in 14 tons. Its quite hard to justify.

Then it gets worse because you would also be able to fit 3 x AC5 if not 4 x AC5.

Lets compare shall we?

3xAC5 = same tonnage and -2 crit slots for 50% more damage.

AC10's just aren't any good. Please go ahead and link smurfy to an optimized variant that is using AC10 ignoring quirks. Better yet a truly meta/good/comp build. Because you know damn well that there are many 2xAC5 and AC20 builds that qualify for that.

I know this forum and playerbase loves their unique and under appreciated "island of lost toys" stuff but a little realism and perspective once in awhile would sure make taking the time to post here less of a chore.

Edited by Hoax415, 17 October 2014 - 07:51 PM.

[Mercules]

Hoax415, on 17 October 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

So the only issue is the most important thing that faces any weapon system?

How effective a weapon loadout is using X tonnage and X slots (if you are slot limited) is the basis of any analysis of what is an optimal weapon loadout.

So yes in some pretend world where you can fit any B weapon in one location but not an AC20 in the other location you could consider a AC10x2 setup... Maybe. Because the problem is that we're talking 24 tons for the same damage AC20 does in 14 tons. Its quite hard to justify.

Then it gets worse because you would also be able to fit 3 x AC5 if not 4 x AC5.

Lets compare shall we?

3xAC5 = same tonnage and -2 crit slots for 50% more damage.

AC10's just aren't any good. Please go ahead and link smurfy to an optimized variant that is using AC10 ignoring quirks. Better yet a truly meta/good/comp build. Because you know damn well that there are many 2xAC5 and AC20 builds that qualify for that.

I know this forum and playerbase loves their unique and under appreciated "island of lost toys" stuff but a little realism and perspective once in awhile would sure make taking the time to post here less of a chore.

You are also forgetting that there are mechs I can't fit an AC20 on, or 4 AC 5s, but can put 2 AC 10s on.

[Hoax415]

Post the builds. Not to mention it proves that AC10's suck when the only reason anyone would use them is because they can't fit other AC's...

IF, you can pick AC20

AND, you have a 2nd B slot that can't fit AC20 (so no AC40 master race) but it can fit AC10.

THEN, you can pick 3 x AC5 instead of 2 x AC10 and all you need to find is 2 extra crit slots, which everyone would agree is a good deal for +50% damage.

Those are facts.

This is opinion.

AC10's suck. They were the worst AC until PGI demolished the AC2 way back when.

Its not just me, look at this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...he-tier-system/

Nobody is going to claim AC10's are as good as UAC5, AC5 or AC20.

Edited by Hoax415, 17 October 2014 - 08:16 PM.