83 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

The new Quirk system has now officially been green-lit to focus on pushing chassis to a specific meta build. A meta-build that exists only as a point-in-time snapshot of an immature and evolving metagame.

And if that is the case, whey did PGI choose this specific point-in-time for force the entire future of the meta-game around? Why not a year ago when poptarts ruled the skies? the days of the LURM-apocalypse, or better yet, why not adhere to the tried and true designs by FASA and let the metagame continue to evolve.

What we have now is PGI chasing its tail trying to fit Quirks to the current meta-game, then tomorrow they nerf a weapon or equipment changing the entire metagame landscape, only to realize that their entire mech tiering system is now completely obsolete.

I implore you PGI, make the quirks based on the traditional TT role of the mech, not the flavor of the week meta-game you are pushing.

[Krivvan]

Traditional TT roles are sometimes really dumb. Like LRMs on Centurions.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Krivvan, on 29 October 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

Traditional TT roles are sometimes really dumb. Like LRMs on Centurions.

Please elaborate.
Many TT mech designs are not optimal even for TT, but the LRM on a Centurion not one of them, it's primary weapon is an AC10, and its backup weapons are Medium lasers for close range, and LRM10 for longer ranges. I am not sure I understand why do think that is dumb.

So if you were going to replace that LRM, what would you put in its place?

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 29 October 2014 - 05:53 PM.

[Tezcatli]

I think it makes each variant more then just a few minor changes in hard points. While still letting you throw on whatever you like. Right now some variants are considered inferior and are only run to master a mech. At least this way they might be viable for specific weapons.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Here are a couple of problems I have with the current system.
1. Making the the Centurion an SRM mech, then what is the role of the Kintaro, oh LRMs? so then what is the fundamental issue with MWO that forces that switch? hardpoint inflation? LRM5 superior characteristics?

2. Stating that LRMs are stupid on a Centurion. yet they are OK when boated on your Stalker? It doesn't sound like LRMs are the problem here.

[Brody319]

You cannot apply board game logic to a ******* FPS team shooter. People will go towards a specific build if its the most efficient killer. Table top rules can be selected and modified at will. They also had it so you instantly knew where the enemy was, and you were just playing chest to set your mechs up in the correct positions. You also had infantry and tanks. This game is entirely different.
no weapon convergence
no spreadable damage (cant launch missiles and have them hit some of the enemy all around)

Stock loadouts are terrible, so buffing them won't do anything but make them equal to the better loadouts.
If they want people to run stock, they should make the stock mechs better.

[Pjwned]

It may stifle some variety in specific variants that might otherwise have some sort of weird build that a few people like, but the thing is that there are still generalized weapon quirks and more importantly the variety of mech chassis to be seen on the field will almost certainly increase dramatically.

In a perfectly ideal situation the game wouldn't need these quirks because the mechs would already be pretty balanced against each other, but this is the best solution that I can see that's even remotely practical.

Edited by Pjwned, 29 October 2014 - 06:17 PM.

[Popper100]

Isn't this a problem from trying to make this game an arena shooter rather than a role-playing mech simulator? Everyone finds something that is efficient and then the rest of the content in your game becomes meaningless except to completionists, Of course there are going to be inferior designs, that's the way this universe has evolved and left certain designs in the dust, which are used by mothball units and reserves to combat overwhelming odds and sometimes succeeding.

It is also part of the bigger issue of an imperfect balancing system that can't account for unit composition and other factors, but that is another thing.

[Mad Pig]

No.

[Mothykins]

Brody319, on 29 October 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

You cannot apply board game logic to a ******* FPS team shooter. People will go towards a specific build if its the most efficient killer. Table top rules can be selected and modified at will. They also had it so you instantly knew where the enemy was, and you were just playing chest to set your mechs up in the correct positions. You also had infantry and tanks. This game is entirely different.
no weapon convergence
no spreadable damage (cant launch missiles and have them hit some of the enemy all around)

Stock loadouts are terrible, so buffing them won't do anything but make them equal to the better loadouts.
If they want people to run stock, they should make the stock mechs better.

The issue is that if you buff stock load-outs, you can push them into viability. As much as I griped about the AC10, med las Hunch, running stock, that thing is now scary.

The K2 and the 1V are great examples of this quirk system going sideways.

PPCs used to be good. Really good. So quirk-buffing the PPC on the K2 would bear reason that the results would be good; in fact, the mechs layout caters to the arm mounted PPCs. It's a really well designed mech in that regard. The fact that the quirks focus on medium lasers and ballistics is just asinine; two PPCs are the same punch as an AC20, and if the speed was up, the mech would be an amazing direct fire support platform again.

The 1V is getting ERLL buffs. The issue is that the ERLL requires you to face enemies for an extended period of time, and at range, you can't circle or move quickly across their FOV. This, by the way, leads to anything with a gauss that sees you splattering you across the map. Not nice. On top of that, it's getting accel+decel buffs, which lead to a vastly improved maneuverability that really is only valid in close.

Neither of these quirk sets actually have synergy with the chassis and it's layout at all, and take away from everything the mech is actually about.

[Tesunie]

I also feel that some of their "role" defined mechs were a little... off...
For example, I use the Locust 1E (that is the 2 LRM5 version stock, right?) as a light support mech. They have it labled as a skirmisher...

I also agree that I wish more of these quirks were more helpful to a mechs' intended role/stock loadout. I actually do play stock mechs in public games, and it nothing else it would help new players as well as help reinforce a mechs' original role, not the current "meta" role MW:O players have defined for a mech. All the SRM quirks, for example, on the new centurion AH, just about screams for it to go against it's LRM stock weapons. It pushes the mech into a MW:O defined role, instead of the mechs defined role. (And I know, there are still some quirks for generalized weapons that still help, but people like to get "the most for their buck" and will try to pile in the "most benefited weapon" onto a chassis.)

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Krivvan, on 29 October 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

Traditional TT roles are sometimes really dumb. Like LRMs on Centurions.

LRM's on CN9's CAN be utilized well.

The problem is, everone instantly thinks that the only thing you can do with a specific mech, is to force it into X role.

CN9's typically end up fast skrimishing brawlers in MWO, usually with lasers and SRM's.

CN9's in lore are ment to be all around fighters that can engage at any distance.

You CAN do well in a stock-inspired CN9. Try it, it's tricky, it's tough, and it requires you to be REALLY DAMNED GOOD. but it can be done.

The issue is that, everone gravitates towards the "Easy" way. Most of you playing, you don't want to play a battletech game, you want to play CoD with robots, you want quick kills and to move on.

You don't want tactical engagements, you want to kill big robots fast with your big robot. Instead of having a slug out, dragged out fight.

[Kjudoon]

If anything, these are 'soft' classes being created. They're creating more or less 'suggested metas' by giving improved performance on some set of criterion. You don't HAVE to use the bonuses for your loadouts, and could ignore them, but that won't be the most optimal loadout for that mech anymore. Case in point. The Gauss K2 is potentially going to be ovrshadowed by a new variant that takes full advantage of the buffs based on energy.

I'm curious to see how this changes mech building and the meta. It could be in some cases the quirks are powerful enough to make what was previously very sub optimal a solid build because of the buffs.

Since I have a ton of Tier 4/5 mechs, I'm looking forward to it.

[ollo]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 29 October 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

Please elaborate.
Many TT mech designs are not optimal even for TT, but the LRM on a Centurion not one of them, it's primary weapon is an AC10, and its backup weapons are Medium lasers for close range, and LRM10 for longer ranges. I am not sure I understand why do think that is dumb.

So if you were going to replace that LRM, what would you put in its place?

He thinks the cents have to be brawler SRM kings like my AH... _{(though it is more peasant than king right now)}

[All iN]

At the moment the only metagame I hope for is not being tossed with hamsters and lemmings intp 12 Pug against premades.

I remember the good old times of tabletop and old Mechwarrior games, and I did loved them - but now, after trying to get back after a break I'm just flat out dissapointed. Every match is just a **** fest 1-12 or 0-12.

Mid day - it's somewhat ok, 3 rapes one fairly balanced game (meaning one side takes more than 2 light 2 med mechs). Late night? One side crackheads talking about what they are smoking, flying on Spiders and shooting EACH OTHER in flight for fun, other side termiantors that ERLLS me in the head from 900+m, and calling out every single person that is not a complete ******.

With things like that, all other conversations are just empty noise.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 29 October 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

The new Quirk system has now officially been green-lit to focus on pushing chassis to a specific meta build. A meta-build that exists only as a point-in-time snapshot of an immature and evolving metagame.

And if that is the case, whey did PGI choose this specific point-in-time for force the entire future of the meta-game around? Why not a year ago when poptarts ruled the skies? the days of the LURM-apocalypse, or better yet, why not adhere to the tried and true designs by FASA and let the metagame continue to evolve.

What we have now is PGI chasing its tail trying to fit Quirks to the current meta-game, then tomorrow they nerf a weapon or equipment changing the entire metagame landscape, only to realize that their entire mech tiering system is now completely obsolete.

I implore you PGI, make the quirks based on the traditional TT role of the mech, not the flavor of the week meta-game you are pushing.

I don't see any Meta-oriented quirk trend. I *do* see a Table-Top-focused trend, but not a Meta Trend.

Since when are Catapult A1 missile quirks "meta-fuel?" It only has missile hardpoints.
Kintaros with LRM5 quirks? Yeah, super Meta. You know how we all fear the LRM Quickdraws that flood the servers.
Don't forget those Medium Pulse Laser Spider 5V's that dominate the competitive scene.

If you assign the flaws of this quirk-pass to "Meta" then you are really just complaining for the sake of complaining. If you want to complain, complain about how these quirk passes are weapon-specific instead of component-specific. Mechs are unique by their components - Shoulders with big cannons, Arms with missile banks. etc. Components make the Mechs what they are, not just the specific weapon that's mounted there on an irrelevant TRO sheet.

We have a Mechlab. We have hardpoints. Hardpoints are assigned to components. Quirks should be based on components, where the weapons get mounted. Weapons we choose in Mechlab, not off a paper sheet.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 29 October 2014 - 07:10 PM.

[Mothykins]

Prosperity Park, on 29 October 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

I don't see any Meta-oriented quirk trend. I *do* see a Table-Top-focused trend, but not a Meta Trend.

Since when are Catapult A1 missile quirks "meta-fuel?" It only has missile hardpoints.
Kintaros with LRM5 quirks? Yeah, super Meta. You know how we all fear the LRM Quickdraws that flood the servers.
Don't forget those Medium Pulse Laser Spider 5V's that dominate the competitive scene.

If you assign the flaws of this quirk-pass to "Meta" then you are really just complaining for the sake of complaining. If you want to complain, complain about how these quirk passes are weapon-specific instead of component-specific. Mechs are unique by their components - Shoulders with big cannons, Arms with missile banks. etc. Components make the Mechs what they are, not just the specific weapon that's mounted there on an irrelevant TRO sheet.

We have a Mechlab. We have hardpoints. Hardpoints are assigned to components. Quirks should be based on components, where the weapons get mounted. Weapons we choose in Mechlab, not off a paper sheet.

K2.

1V

Very Meta, not at all stock.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Cavale, on 29 October 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

K2.

1V

Very Meta, not at all stock.

More of them are stock than Meta. And even the "Meta" ones are not super-meta. A K2 with PPCs and an AC/5 or 10 would be more "Meta" than MLs and AC/5.. unless you agree that the "Meta" is just a reasonable mix of short and long-range weapons.

Assigning the weapons quirks was sub-optimal, this I agree. I do not believe they moulded the whole thing out of Meta. Too much is derived from BattleTech.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 29 October 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[Tesunie]

Shall we just start to agree then? Mechlab is OP! (Seriously, almost all the issues in this game are caused by the mechlab and customizations. However, I'm not for nor against Mechlab and see it as a vital part of the game.)

[SpiralFace]

Krivvan, on 29 October 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

Traditional TT roles are sometimes really dumb. Like LRMs on Centurions.

Don't know what game you where playing. Even at a tournament level, bracketed fire weapons are ALWAYS important. Because offensive power is easier to fit on then heat efficiency, and heat efficiency rides the curb up.

If you have a mech like a hunchback that is specialized only within a 6 hex effective range. (as long range is not "effective" range,) You are setting yourself up to be zoned bad unless you have constructed a rushdown force in itself. (Which people will see a mile a way from the second you put mechs down and deploy accordingly.

Cent's LRM's are great. It has a mid range AC, close range ML's, and long range LRM's. Its pretty much effective at every range in the game which allows it to pump out consistent DPT (Damage per Turn) compared to something like a hunchback that might be great at close range, but is susceptible to being "zoned" by the enemy team fairly easily.