594 replies to this topic

[Jody Von Jedi]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

whelp my PPC build is still toast, but that's OK, I don't run em much anyhow, so if it suits your build better, more power to it, since you do like to run yours a fair bit. Did any of the TBT changes fit your needs?

Just the LG, it got general missile quirks. Sean didn't show the 7M quirks which is the variant I run the most.

TBT-LoupDeGuerre
Specialty
Additional Structure (RA&LA) +8
Missile Weapon Cooldown +10%
Missile Weapon Range +10%
Medium Pulse Range +7.5%
Energy Weapon Range +7.5%
Energy Weapon Heat Gen -10%
Energy Weapon Cooldown +10%
Torso yaw speed +25%

[Mike McSullivan]

Torgun, on 13 February 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

Following that fantastic reasoning we have almost all Battlemasters have laser quirks focused on medium lasers. How much diversity and fun!

the diversity is not killed by a "partiallyl" buff to the stock-version, but extrem singleweapon quirks (->ERPPC-spam). Or quirks that doesnt have to do anything with the mech itself (Arrow with AC20 quirk and ignoring the MGs).
The best way would be to only quirk main weapontypes, not specific ones.

[Torgun]

Mike McSullivan, on 13 February 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

the diversity is not killed by a "partiallyl" buff to the stock-version, but extrem singleweapon quirks (->ERPPC-spam). Or quirks that doesnt have to do anything with the mech itself (Arrow with AC20 quirk and ignoring the MGs).
The best way would be to only quirk main weapontypes, not specific ones.

Diversity is most certainly killed by quirks overly focusing on a single laser weapon for a chassis that is heavily relying on energy hardpoints. Because quirks are supposed to bring your variants higher up in tier and be more competitive, and pigeonhole a huge majority of variants around one laser if you want to be more competitive is flat-out stupid.
It should be weapon type quirks instead of weapon specific ones, but the devs just went full bonkers on the Battlemasters. After the 17th they should simply rename them Medium-lasermasters

Edited by Torgun, 13 February 2015 - 07:51 AM.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Mike McSullivan, on 13 February 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

the diversity is not killed by a "partiallyl" buff to the stock-version, but extrem singleweapon quirks (->ERPPC-spam). Or quirks that doesnt have to do anything with the mech itself (Arrow with AC20 quirk and ignoring the MGs).
The best way would be to only quirk main weapontypes, not specific ones.

I agree. I would much rather see a "general" Quirk related to either Energy, Missile, or Ballistic. If you wanted weapon specific quirks to add on top of the general quirk, you buy a module for it.

[Fate 6]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

be careful what you ask for, or you could end up like the Sad Centurion......

Meanwhile nobody even remembers the Cicada still needs updates...

[MerryIguana]

Will this game ever get out of beta?

And to Bishop, If you want diversity why arnt you lobbying for general quirks. I miss the good ole days when i could put whatever i wanted on my mech. Stock loudouts lol.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mike McSullivan, on 13 February 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

the diversity is not killed by a "partiallyl" buff to the stock-version, but extrem singleweapon quirks (->ERPPC-spam). Or quirks that doesnt have to do anything with the mech itself (Arrow with AC20 quirk and ignoring the MGs).
The best way would be to only quirk main weapontypes, not specific ones.

Partly disagree.

I think that we should continue to use the two tier weapon quirk system. It's the balance on them, IMO, that need altering.
For instance, lets say you have 40% total cooldown for an AC10. 20 for Ballistics, stacked with 20 for the AC10 itself. To my mind, I would rather see it come with 30% Ballistic, and a 10% for the AC10. Why? Because the mech was designed around the ac10, and thus, should be at it's "peak" efficiency with it, whereas with Modules the Mech would be just as efficient with any ballistic, just depends on the model. That said, I dislike quirks being so strongly focused as to make it "the one true" way.

SO, IMO, I think it's more a matter of shipping the strength of the quirk to the general, with the specific being the cherry on top, that still gives the mechs the unique build and character that it was designed to carry.

[Torgun]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

Really not that tough. No different than how they handled hardpoint inflation on homogenous models. One BLR gets the PPC as it's focused quirks, with general buffs, in other weapons, another gets the MLasers as it's focus, another Missiles, etc. The you HAve some with MPL or ER PPC over ML and PPC, and even in each weapon set, you can have some with more of a DPS focus, others with range focus, etc.

Sorry to say, but the way most of the complaining is going, I think the game maybe should just sell empty Chassis named "Generic Energy MEta 65 (65 tons), Generic Ballistic Meta, 80 (tons) etc."

Because sorry to say? A Jagermech come with those AC for a reason. A Catapult with missiles. Customization is good and fine, but don't see any reason totally unrelated meta builds should somehow function BETTER than how a mech is designed to run.

Getting rather tired of the Comp Crowd pushing for "Generic Robot Warrior: ONline"-

How the heck would the Battlemaster be generic if it got different laser quirks instead? One LPL, one LL, another MP, another ML etc. The ERPPC and PPC quirks they just tossed in there as a late afterthought. Take away -10% energy heat generation from the 3M but give it damn hot ERPPC quirks at the same time? And of course ML quirks, ML quirks for all Battlemasters save one doesn't make them seem generic to you?

Edited by Torgun, 13 February 2015 - 08:06 AM.

[WarHippy]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 February 2015 - 10:52 PM, said:

You're Making the claim. Prove it. If you do, I'm sure Russ will listen.

I don't think he is just deciding to make theses changes on a whim, or because I asked him nicely. Not a good marketing strategy. Last 2 quirk passes where to appese Metawhores. Since he decided to adjust a different way, that would imply that likely their marketing said the previous way wasn't working. Because if it was making them money? They wouldn't change.

Not to be argumentative, but by that logic marketing must have told them to buff it when it was originally at -25% because if it was making them money why would they change it to -50%? Seems to me with that line of thinking they should have found some middle ground between -25% and -50%.

[Deathlike]

WarHippy, on 13 February 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

Not to be argumentative, but by that logic marketing must have told them to buff it when it was originally at -25% because if it was making them money why would they change it to -50%? Seems to me with that line of thinking they should have found some middle ground between -25% and -50%.

What do you think PGI is? SMRT?

I mean, we have separate threads for Atlases and Highlanders and their quirks. There's something about "missing the mark" where they excel at greatly.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 February 2015 - 08:09 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

The Wakelord, on 13 February 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

Remind me why to play the 3M?
1E = 1AMS, 6E
3M = 2AMS, 4E

1E seems a lot better
Sad both hit so hard though.

1E got a 5% nerf to general laser range, and that's the only negative change. Otherwise, they improved it greatly. Medium lasers won't hit out to 378 anymore, but 365 is still pretty damn respectable. Since they'll run 5% cooler now, you can skimp on heatsinks and run the full complement of six more efficiently.

And that duration bonus is amazing.

The LCT-3M, (which has 5E, btw) got whacked super hard, though. No range buff means it is objectively less capable than the rest, even with that same 20% cool-down bonus.

[Fate 6]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

Partly disagree.

I think that we should continue to use the two tier weapon quirk system. It's the balance on them, IMO, that need altering.
For instance, lets say you have 40% total cooldown for an AC10. 20 for Ballistics, stacked with 20 for the AC10 itself. To my mind, I would rather see it come with 30% Ballistic, and a 10% for the AC10. Why? Because the mech was designed around the ac10, and thus, should be at it's "peak" efficiency with it, whereas with Modules the Mech would be just as efficient with any ballistic, just depends on the model. That said, I dislike quirks being so strongly focused as to make it "the one true" way.

SO, IMO, I think it's more a matter of shipping the strength of the quirk to the general, with the specific being the cherry on top, that still gives the mechs the unique build and character that it was designed to carry.

If you balance it like that (3:1 instead of 1:1), then you end up with 30% AC20 reduction sometimes. Or for lasers you get insane heat reductions on big weapons, etc. The 50/50 split right now is a lot better for balance because it means the mechs with really good quirks for a specific weapon still have strong quirks for other weapons but doesn't push that insanely over the top. If it was 30% cooldown reduction on AC10s in the CN9-D then the LB-10X build would go out the window instantly in favor of a more effective AC10 - and that AC10 would be more effective than the HBK-4H's btw.

[Torgun]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

And nice to focus on only one portion of what was written, without taking it and applying it big picture. Please, actually READ the first paragraph?

Because your big picture actually doesn't focus on the quirks, you're saying you can still take whatever and just use a few ML to make use of the quirks a bit. I'm talking about what the quirks actually makes the variants good at, and really it's so focused on ML across all variants but one it's silly.

Edited by Torgun, 13 February 2015 - 08:15 AM.

[Axeface]

So, as per my post about this yesterday about 20 pages back.

The Wubmaster has taken a 10% heat nerf, so now I have to buy and outfit a 3S instead.
The 1S has taken a %7.5 lrm 15 heat and cooldown nerf, so now I might aswell take a different assault.


PGI. Your players spent a LOT of time getting cbills, they then look at the mechs and quirks and make as an informed decision as they can about their purchases. These constant changes have me furious now, on these 2 battlemasters alone I have spent something like 30 million cbills, only for them now to be slightly outclassed by something else. The wubmaster was in a good place, was that 1 LPL so OP to deserve a 10% heat nerf?
As for the 1S, I chose it as my assault lrm boat for many reasons, now there are a lot of other mechs in that weight class which will do it better and those reasons are gone.


Should I just stop playing and come back once you have finished? 2 years maybe? Is that enough?

Edited by Axeface, 13 February 2015 - 08:24 AM.

[MerryIguana]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Odd..since you can still put whatever on your mechs. And just open generic mech online, doesn't encourage diversity, never has in any previous MW title. Then it's simply "pick the best hitboxes and stuff whatever you want, and ignore the other chassis". Always has been.

I see. When you say encourage all i see is forced diversity. Freedom of spec is for clan mechs i guess.

[Fate 6]

Torgun, on 13 February 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

Diversity is most certainly killed by quirks overly focusing on a single laser weapon for a chassis that is heavily relying on energy hardpoints. Because quirks are supposed to bring your variants higher up in tier and be more competitive, and pigeonhole a huge majority of variants around one laser if you want to be more competitive is flat-out stupid.
It should be weapon type quirks instead of weapon specific ones, but the devs just went full bonkers on the Battlemasters. After the 17th they should simply rename them Medium-lasermasters

Using the 5SS as an example, are you upset that building 7 medium lasers is less effective than building 7MPL on the same 5SS? Or are you upset that 7 medium lasers are less effective on the 5SS compared to 7 medium lasers on a HBK-4P?

In competitive play, obviously you will use the 7MPL build because that is the most effective loadout. In a general game, though, I fail to see how running something else isn't viable. Or are you trying to say you want the 7MPL build to literally be the same effectiveness as the 7ML build? Because then you're just saying you want all the weapons to be exactly the same and that's just not gonna happen. Some builds are going to be more effective, no matter what.

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

But's it's nice that you think I have so much sway with PGI. Almost Flattering.

He said nothing of the sort and you are just letting your ego fly lately aren't you? I've been waiting to say this for the last 24 hours but it's seriously getting tiresome to see your hypocritical comments over and over. You keep whining that people think they know best when they don't, and then there you are telling everyone what the best thing to do is. Suddenly, when people disagree, you get all offended and make everything personal.

[Bishop Steiner]

Torgun, on 13 February 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

Because your big picture actually doesn't focus on the quirks, you're saying you can still take whatever and just use a few ML to make use of the quirks a bit. I'm talking about what the quirks actually makes the variants good at, and really it's so focused on ML across all variants but one it's silly.

That''s not remotely what I said.

Let me try this again.

OK. We have mechs with Homogenous Weapons. The Victor and Battlemaster are two notable examples.
What did PGI do? They focused the Hardpoints to emphasize different weapon groups, thus one has more ballistics, another more energy.


There is no reason at all, they cannot use the same philosophy with the quirks on those homogenous weapons.
1 Battlemaster, the Quirks focus primarily on it's PPC. Another Battlemaster, the quirks focus on the Medium LAsers, ands yet another, the Missiles. All 3 weapons it actually COMES WITH, as opposed to Large Lasers or the like, that NO VARIANT HAS.

And even within those weapons group, different aspects can be emphasized. You have 2 BLRs with Missiles as Primary. MAke one heavily oriented toward Cooldown on those, another more heavily oriented toward heat reduction, or range, etc. One Battlemaster gets more heat reduction for it's weapons, another gets the focus on beam reduction.

The problem, with the forums, AND with PGI, is people really seem over focused and limited on their willingness to look into what the quirks system COULD accompñlish. People seem to get focused on one idea that works really well (they think) on that one build they like to run. Instead of looking at everything as pieces in the puzzle that are going to have to interact if things are ever going to have a semblance of actual balance.

[Fate 6]

MerryIguana, on 13 February 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

I see. When you say encourage all i see is forced diversity. Freedom of spec is for clan mechs i guess.

Yeah I'm honestly not sure if he just wants each chassis to have it's own build that does something else from another chassis, or if he wants a chassis to have a few decent options for builds by itself. I'd like PPCs or LL to be viable on the CN9-AL, but I think Bishop would rather it be "no, that mech is good at that thing because another mech has to be good at the other thing"

[WarHippy]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

way to connect two unrelated things. The Tbolt, as you know we already covered...it was ignored because there was "better" options at that time, in particular, all the top merc units ran clan laser vomit, almost exclusively. And the MEta crowd is going to take the absolute top tier. Then suddenly it gets over quirked, and bang, it gets used. But that "macro" look at the game is not the same as looking at the overall trends in faction, balance and spending.

Those "better options" at the time are still there now that it has returned to -25%. I just think it makes little sense to bounce back and forth between over quirked and under quirked. At -25% it was underused because it was seen as unviable, and at -50% it was nerfed because it was seen as over the top. So why go back to where it was when that was seen as not enough? Also what are the two unrelated things? You talked about them not nerfing it if it was making them money so one can assume they wouldn't have buffed it if it was making them money.

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

By the way, reducing the HEat to reasonable quirks and boosting the velocity way up? IS a middle ground approach. In fact, just reading these forums, a lot of people prefer the velocity.

What boost to velocity was way up? It was already at +15% and now it is at +30%. If people were being honest with themselves they would realize that isn't all that impressive, but instead they are getting excited for a small buff that puts ERPPCs at the velocity that they should be at by default.

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

But's it's nice that you think I have so much sway with PGI. Almost Flattering.

What are you talking about? When did I ever say you have sway of any kind with PGI? Feel free to be flattered all you want, but keep in mind those flattering remarks are products of your own imagination.

[Fate 6]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

...Battlemasters blah blah blah...

What you're describing is what weapon modules do anyway. It doesn't create noticeable differences in mechs. 3SRMs+6ML with extra range on one mech doesn't feel different compared to 3SRMs+6ML with reduced heat on another mech. Sure it functions slightly differently but ultimately it's the same build and you're going to find that one is just better (SRM range is a bit of a joke) so you go with the better one 100% of the time now (yay less heat!)