17 replies to this topic

[Roadbuster]

I think the majority of players is familiar with the following situation:

You drop in a match and check out the mechs on your team.
There's a WHK-B, FS9-A, HBK-4J, DRG-1N, Huginn, DWF-B, TDR-9S,... and, while still reading the list, you already have their weapon loadouts in mind.

WHK-B -> LRM
FS9-A -> SPL
HBK-4J -> LRM10
DRG-1N -> AC5
Huginn -> SRM4
DWF-B -> UAC5 or dual Gauss
TDR-9S -> ER-PPC

And you're not surprised to find out that the loadouts you thought about, are pretty much exactly what the players use in these mechs.
It's the same when you see an enemy mech. You often don't have to wait for target info to know what a mech has loaded.

The obvious reason for this, are the, in some cases jaw dropping big, mech quirks for specific weapons.
Like the ER-PPC quirks on the TDR-9S, to name one very well known example.



Now, it's true that a number of mechs are lacking in some aspects.
Be it limited hardpoints or unfavorable hitboxes, and the resulting problems.

Quirks are a good idea to reduce these issues and balance mechs to be as viable as other chasis in the weight class.
That's great and clearly increases the variety of mechs we see in the matches.

But at the same time, the quirks for specific weapons, limit the loadout variation to a point, where using a "unquirked" weapon puts you at a disadvantage.
You don't get any bonus for using other weapons, compared to the free quirk which neither costs you tonnage, slots or anything else.



My point is, that the devs should reduce or scrap the quirks for specific weapons and adjust the general weapon type quirks instead.

For example: Instead of a "10% Ballistic Cooldown" AND a "10% AC5 Cooldown" quirk, give the mech a "15% Ballistic Cooldown" quirk, or just scrap the AC5 quirk and keep the 10% Ballistic quirk.

Also increase the number of mech quirks like "Internal Structure", "Torso Turn Angle",... and implement new quirks to strengthen specific aspects of a mech, like "X% Reduced Damage Taken" or "X% Lower Chance Of Ammo Explosion",...

I think this would encourage more variation of weapon loadouts and reduce the number of stereotypes we have now.


TLDR:
Give mechs more general quirks for the chasis and scrap the quirks for specific weapons, for the sake of loadout variation.

[mike29tw]

Agreed.

Quirks are becoming the new Ghost Heat.

And IMO all quirks should never provide more than 25% weapon stat boosts.
Quirks are quickly becoming the go-to approach when PGI is dealing with balance, which feel awfully familiar as before.

"There's something wrong with that weapon? Ghost the crap out of its heat."
"There's something wrong with that mech? Quirk the **** out of it."

Edited by mike29tw, 10 February 2015 - 04:49 AM.

[Rhaythe]

It tends to promote buildouts that are closer to the tabletop variants, so - speaking as a Battletech vet - I'm actually quite okay with this.

I do get where you're coming from. Though if we're being honest, a lot of chassis had their "correct meta builds" long before quirks came about. Jager? Dual-AC20 or Dual-gauss. Raven? Nowadays, 2ERLL, but once upon a time, 3ml, 2 streaks. Victor? Ha. Only one build for that. Cataphract 3D? Jumpjets, PPC and AC10. Shadowhawk? Well... anyway...

I love the idea of increased variety, but the meta will always meta.

[MeiSooHaityu]

(This is a bit...ranty and unfocused, so sorry for that lol)

I think the way weapon quirks are done now are ok. There are plenty of quirk balance issues, but the general idea of (Ex: Ballistic cooldown 7.5%, A/CX cooldown 7.5%) is fine.

It doesn't force you to use A/CX, but it gives it that additional bonus to use it. You still get a small buff using A/CY, but just not as much (and with a cooldown module it would exceed the base quirk for A/CX anyway, well before adding the A/CX cooldown module anyway ).

Right now I am using a Vindicator 1AA. That Vindicator gets a 40% velocity buff to PPCs a long with a heat generation reduction to PPCs. Sounds good right? Well I'm using it with 2 LPLasers and 2MLasers instead. I might not be getting the additional PPC heat generation reduction, but the base energy cool down quirk allows m to fire the energy weapons I'm using quicker. I may even get cool down modules for both the LPLaser and MLaser and get some quicker fire when needed.

Point is, I chose to ignore the more specialized quirks, and am using the base quirks to my advantage. I'm not forced into one load out and I find I do better without the PPCs on this build.

It still allows players to experiment and do what they want. The onlyvcommon exception is the REALLY good quirks that are hard to ignore. I know there is quite a few of those (OP posted those as his examples). Still, you could run something else and take advantage of the base quirks, but I agree that PGI makes the specialized ones enticing.

Just remember though, if the base quirks were set high without specialized quirks, many builds (especially ballistic builds) would become very overpowered. There needs to be some specialization for balance.

[Dock Steward]

It has become a bit...predictable. So much so, that when you do run a "non-quirk" build, like an LRM60 Highlander (because it's fun, that's why), it's so surprising that members of your team stop dead in their tracks and stare, wondering why you don't have a ballistic weapon in your right arm...

[Remarius]

Amusing you only picked very specific chassis there OP and missed out my two most frequently seen ones - SCR's and TBR's.

Most of the Warhawks I see in the group queue are SRM/energy based. DRG-1N's have mostly disappeared as the arm is so vulnerable. I never see Huggin's. I only ever see one single pilot in a HBK-5J (Jman5) when hes farming c-bills.

Now FS9-A's and TDR-9S's I agree are cookie cutter and effective... but my light queue has varied between 8 and 11% this week so strangely they're not apparently attractive enough to flood the battlefield with. Often I've been the only light this week on my side in a TDK/PB or paired with a single ECM light.
TDR-9S's are definitely popular and effective if you practice leading your target.

I partially agree with you but I prefer distinctively different mechs rather than the bland alternative of generic bonuses you're proposing.

[The Wakelord]

What I like about quirks: They act as a combination of
- "how to meta" for the people who don't trawl forums,
- as a way to distinguish mechs between variants more than already (I hated that the common way to grind the raven-4X was to treat it like the -2X and pretend the ballistics + JJ don't exist)
- Encourage stock load outs on (some) mechs

Where they could improve:
- Less reliably specific (something like 80% of mechs are encouraged to be a very certain load out only - eg: Hunchback "AC20" 4G. Could be just as good as if the Hunchback 4G just gave lots of ballistic cooldown, while the 4H gave lots of extra range (instead of both giving both, but only for 1 weapon)
- Greater variety in quirks (not just +range or +cooldown which I imagine was easy to add) but more stuff like +turn speed, +accell + JJ height. I love the locust's +accell.

[Sjorpha]

The problem is that we have two different categories of technology, that are not balanced. But rather than balance the tech itself, there are two systems in place to obscure and cancel out the imbalances instead of removing them.

On the clan side, we have locked down subpar layouts that obscure the superiority of clan tech while leaving the few good layouts overpowered and hard to balance.

On the IS side we have a quirk system that obscures the inferiority of IS tech by extreme buffs to specific loadouts.

Not only does this make balance discussions very hard, it also turns the few competitive IS mechs into one trick ponies that are competeing with the few good clan generalists.

What should be done?

As far as I can see the only sensible approach is to remove all quirks, unlock endo+ferro on the clans, and then balance from there until the two factions tech is actually equally strong without quirks. Only then is it time to balance the subpar chassis with quirks.

What we have now is a situation where the extreme quirks on some chassis makes it impossible to evaluate weapons, how do you talk about the IS PPC without factoring in the 9S quirks? You can't. It's an extremely weak weapon, but it can't be buffed without tweaking a number of specific mech quirks. Every balance change to the core tech is extrememly difficult and work intensive.

We need a situation where the strengths and weaknesses of clan and IS tech are not so obscured by quirks and build limitations. This would of course temporarily overpower the clans, but that is exactly what is neccessary to make the core issues apparent, that clan tech vs IS should be balanced in itself, not by quirks and build limitations.

[Remarius]

Dock Steward, on 10 February 2015 - 05:35 AM, said:

It has become a bit...predictable. So much so, that when you do run a "non-quirk" build, like an LRM60 Highlander (because it's fun, that's why), it's so surprising that members of your team stop dead in their tracks and stare, wondering why you don't have a ballistic weapon in your right arm...

Ummh the only usage I see of Highlanders nowadays is as LRM boats so not sure why you think that. Not that its exactly a common mech in 2015 tbh.

That said I dread seeing heavier assault mechs with heavy LRM loadouts as I keep seeing nowadays (DWF's and King Crabs last night). Total waste of an assault mech playing coward at the back and expecting the lighter mechs to keep everything away from them. I get the BLR-1S and some Stalkers but the rest are poor at best.

[Remarius]

Sjorpha, on 10 February 2015 - 05:50 AM, said:

The problem is that we have two different categories of technology, that are not balanced. But rather than balance the tech itself, there are two systems in place to obscure and cancel out the imbalances instead of removing them.

On the clan side, we have locked down subpar layouts that obscure the superiority of clan tech while leaving the few good layouts overpowered and hard to balance.

On the IS side we have a quirk system that obscures the inferiority of IS tech by extreme buffs to specific loadouts.

Not only does this make balance discussions very hard, it also turns the few competitive IS mechs into one trick ponies that are competeing with the few good clan generalists.

What should be done?

As far as I can see the only sensible approach is to remove all quirks, unlock endo+ferro on the clans, and then balance from there until the two factions tech is actually equally strong without quirks. Only then is it time to balance the subpar chassis with quirks.

What we have now is a situation where the extreme quirks on some chassis makes it impossible to evaluate weapons, how do you talk about the IS PPC without factoring in the 9S quirks? You can't. It's an extremely weak weapon, but it can't be buffed without tweaking a number of specific mech quirks. Every balance change to the core tech is extrememly difficult and work intensive.

We need a situation where the strengths and weaknesses of clan and IS tech are not so obscured by quirks and build limitations. This would of course temporarily overpower the clans, but that is exactly what is neccessary to make the core issues apparent, that clan tech vs IS should be balanced in itself, not by quirks and build limitations.

Also remove clan targetting computers, change clan XL's to equal IS XL's and change clan double heat sinks to three slots....

[Dock Steward]

Remarius, on 10 February 2015 - 05:55 AM, said:

Ummh the only usage I see of Highlanders nowadays is as LRM boats so not sure why you think that. Not that its exactly a common mech in 2015 tbh.

That said I dread seeing heavier assault mechs with heavy LRM loadouts as I keep seeing nowadays (DWF's and King Crabs last night). Total waste of an assault mech playing coward at the back and expecting the lighter mechs to keep everything away from them. I get the BLR-1S and some Stalkers but the rest are poor at best.

Yeah, cowardice is the only reason to pilot LRM boats...couldn't possibly be any other reason...

[Sjorpha]

Remarius, on 10 February 2015 - 06:04 AM, said:

Also remove clan targetting computers, change clan XL's to equal IS XL's and change clan double heat sinks to three slots....

Not at all, that would totally defeat the purpose.

To be clear, in order to start adressing the imbalance between IS and Clan tech, you must first remove the obscurity caused by quirks and some of the clan build limitations.

Yes, this would create a situation in which the clans are vastly more powerful than the IS, and that situation would reflect the actual imbalance between the techs. Then you can start the balancing.

Of course it would be a bad idea to make the techs the same, the strenghts and weaknesses should be different. But one should not be strictly superior compared to the other.

Take clan XL vs IS XL for example. One is strictly superior. That fact is currently obscured by the build limitations on clan mechs, quirks on IS mechs etc, so it becomes hard if not impossible to discuss. Obviously a sensible balancing approach would be to give the IS XL a comparable, but radically different, advantage to match the clan XLs side torso shield and less crit slots. Perhaps the IS XL could weigh less, or provide more cooling, or whatever else to make them different but equal.

Same with heatsinks, and this goes for single vs double as well as IS vs Clan. Right now we have a straigh progression from the worst (single) to the best (clan) heatsinks. That is obviously stupid design in a PVP game. The single heatsinks should be as viable as the clan or DH but for different reasons. There is an obvious solution which is to first treat all heatsinks inside the engine as single for both IS and clans, that would make the larger size of DHS and actual tradeoff rather than a strict upgrade. It would also reduce heating a bit across the board and reward taking extra heatsinks more, which I believe would be a great change. Then you would have to give the IS DHS something to make up for their larger size compared to clan DHS as well.

Same with weapons. If a cERPPC is lighter, has longer range and does more damage than the IS ERPPC, without any corresponding advantages on the IS side then that is an imbalance to adress. Currently obscured stupidly by IS ERPPC quirks. Without quirks, you could look at what thematic advantages the IS ERPPC could have that would make it a comparably strong weapon without being the same. For example the IS ERPPC could generate less heat and have shorter cooldown.

And so on.

If you want to leave the clan tech slightly superior because reasons, you could look at some kind of general durability buff to IS mechs to balance that. For example IS mechs could have 150% internals or whatever. But I don't think that approach could take you all the way to faction balance without getting silly, so it would need to be combined with tech balancing as outlined above.

After this process is completed, and there is several "tier 1" mechs on both sides, you can start looking at quirks to balance factions internally. But the should absolutely be mechs on both sides that clear tier 1 without needing quirks to do it, and quirks should not be extreme gimmicks like they are now.

Also the strength difference between quirks need to be evaluated in relation the the type of buff and the builds it enables, not the current approach where a 50% range quirk on machineguns with 1 ballistic hardpoint is considered as strong as a 50% heat reduction on a ERPPC boater.

Edited by Sjorpha, 10 February 2015 - 07:18 AM.

[Roadbuster]

Remarius, on 10 February 2015 - 05:47 AM, said:

Amusing you only picked very specific chassis there OP and missed out my two most frequently seen ones - SCR's and TBR's.
...

I partially agree with you but I prefer distinctively different mechs rather than the bland alternative of generic bonuses you're proposing.

I only listed some of the most obvious ones.
It's true that there are many Timbers and Scarecrows running around, but Clan mechs with their Omnipods can be modified more than the IS mechs.
Clan mech quirks are linked to specific Omnipods, so it's possible to specialize more, but without being "forced" into any specific build.

And I'm not saying I want all variants of a mech to get the same quirks.
I also like mechs with different attributes, but I think it's not good if players feel gimped if they don't equip a specific weapon on a mech.



Btw., how many Quickdraws, Victors, Highlanders,... did you see lately?
I see maybe 2-3 in ~25 matches.

[Roadbuster]

Sjorpha, on 10 February 2015 - 07:07 AM, said:

The single heatsinks should be as viable as the clan or DH but for different reasons.

Same with weapons. If a cERPPC is lighter, has longer range and does more damage than the IS ERPPC, without any corresponding advantages on the IS side then that is an imbalance to adress. Currently obscured stupidly by IS ERPPC quirks.

Also the strength difference between quirks need to be evaluated in relation the the type of buff and the builds it enables, not the current approach where a 50% range quirk on machineguns with 1 ballistic hardpoint is considered as strong as a 50% heat reduction on a ERPPC boater.

I totally agree with you. (even if the heatsink debate is a bit OT ^^)

[Sjorpha]

Roadbuster, on 10 February 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

I totally agree with you. (even if the heatsink debate is a bit OT ^^)

I mention it as an example of the generally inconsistent and convoluted approach to balancing in the game, which I think is relevant to the topic. You could talk about endo vs ferro as well, and how they might be balanced versus each other and the clan versions. It makes just as little sense as single and double heatsinks that one is strictly superior rather than being good in different ways.

I suppose misguided fear of compromising lore is part of the problem here, PGI doesn't dare to take a fresh and holistic approach to balancing the factions because they are afraid of upsetting BT fans. But then they get into the catch 22 of having to create weird convoluted systems to balance it instead, and the those weird systems upset the fans just the same.

They need a game designer who is not invested in the lore to look at the game balance and fix it according to proper design and balance principles. But in order for anyone to do that properly I think you must first remove the confusing bandaids, quirks, ghost heat and some of the clan build limitations, so there is an unobscured imbalance to analyze.

[Dock Steward]

Sjorpha, on 10 February 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

I mention it as an example of the generally inconsistent and convoluted approach to balancing in the game, which I think is relevant to the topic. You could talk about endo vs ferro as well, and how they might be balanced versus each other and the clan versions. It makes just as little sense as single and double heatsinks that one is strictly superior rather than being good in different ways.

I suppose misguided fear of compromising lore is part of the problem here, PGI doesn't dare to take a fresh and holistic approach to balancing the factions because they are afraid of upsetting BT fans. But then they get into the catch 22 of having to create weird convoluted systems to balance it instead, and the those weird systems upset the fans just the same.

They need a game designer who is not invested in the lore to look at the game balance and fix it according to proper design and balance principles. But in order for anyone to do that properly I think you must first remove the confusing bandaids, quirks, ghost heat and some of the clan build limitations, so there is an unobscured imbalance to analyze.

I'd just like to point out that the devs had literally years to work on balance before the introduction of quirks, clans, etc. If they were able to crack the balance nut any other way, one would assume they would have done it.

[RussianWolf]

I feel for PGI here.

All through Beta, any time they tried balancing weapons (nerf SRMS, buff LRM velocity, etc) people would call foul. Their "favorite" builds were no longer viable or their for be a change in the meta in general that they didn't like.

Then the Clans.

Several OP builds, mixed with certain weapons that were just too good (laser ranges of the mediums and larges as an example). Suddenly it was P2W if you had clan mechs and IS mechs always lost (if you listened to some).

Then the Quirkening.

Buffs to all the IS bottom dwellers. Some made some sense (PPC buffs on an Awesome), some not so much (AC buffs on a K2??, a mech designed around.... PPCs..... with nary a single PPC quirk). Now we have some IS builds that are treated as gods and others that are rarely played. Funny thing is, before the Quirkening, there were several that were treated like gods and others that were rarely played. Difference? very little.What happened? The meta changed as the quirks changed.

My advice: To the best of my knowledge I have 0 meta builds (and yes, I have every mech in game fully loaded and ready to drop into combat at a moment's notice (well, except for the new clan variants, waiting on the cbill release for those) Even have doubles of the Loyalty mechs now). Drop in whatever you want. Play, enjoy. Screw the meta, screw the try hards. Screw the quirks. The game is supposed to be fun, if you aren't having any, then you've already lost.

Edited by RussianWolf, 10 February 2015 - 09:41 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Dock Steward, on 10 February 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

I'd just like to point out that the devs had literally years to work on balance before the introduction of quirks, clans, etc. If they were able to crack the balance nut any other way, one would assume they would have done it.

And the Quirks system was prompted by the OP Clan Mechs when they arrived. The players will not allow one side to have superior gear, even if they are supposed to. The biggest problem the Clans face is a lack in numbers of Mech choices. A tough problem to fix surely, but the Balance between the 2 is not that bad... at ALL.

The TDR-9S will be nerfed on the 17th, or eat hat I will. What to do about a 75t Mech that has it all (TW), well I will leave that to the Dev to decide. Nerfing it to death to just shut up a few disgruntled IS players, who cry foul at the sight of 4 Lasers in a group ffs, should not sway them.