282 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

Do you like vanilla ice cream?

Some people like vanilla ice cream but others think vanilla ice cream needs chocolate sauce and sprinkles to compete with coffee ice cream.

But most people just enjoy frickin' ice cream without analyzing what makes one ice cream more superior to the other.

This is a Battletech game. This is also a free to play game. Although the demographics have some overlap the majority do not give a rats ass how the mechs get balanced, they just want them balanced so they can enjoy their stompy robot game.

And I am going to let you in on a little secret, PGI can change the quirks at anytime. So if they make a mistake they can change it. PGI has gained my faith because they have been willing to adapt to data....not rants and opinions.

[FupDup]

Ted Wayz, on 21 April 2015 - 06:21 PM, said:

Do you like vanilla ice cream?

Some people like vanilla ice cream but others think vanilla ice cream needs chocolate sauce and sprinkles to compete with coffee ice cream.

But most people just enjoy frickin' ice cream without analyzing what makes one ice cream more superior to the other.

This is a Battletech game. This is also a free to play game. Although the demographics have some overlap the majority do not give a rats ass how the mechs get balanced, they just want them balanced so they can enjoy their stompy robot game.

And I am going to let you in on a little secret, PGI can change the quirks at anytime. So if they make a mistake they can change it. PGI has gained my faith because they have been willing to adapt to data....not rants and opinions.

That's a very bad analogy, because different ice cream flavors are all subjectively measured against each other rather than objectively.

Ice cream flavors can't have superior hitboxes or hardpoints or tonnage. Preferring one ice cream flavor over another is completely based on personal opinion, and can't be factually measured. In Battletech, however, mechs can be measured against each other to determine which ones are objectively, scientifically more effective than others.

Ice cream flavors also aren't pitted to the death against each other in a multiplayer player-versus-player competitive video game.

And I actually do like vanilla ice cream from time to time, it's probably my favorite standalone flavor.

Edited by FupDup, 21 April 2015 - 06:34 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 21 April 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

Then I guess I'll treat yours as the product of a dishonest poster with a perpetual chip on their shoulder who flies off the handle when anyone dares disagree with him.


I asked a simple question, and you couldn't even put together a civil answer.

answer it how you see fit. I've been answering yours in the tone they have been posted for some time now. If you need to make up fairy tales about my character to feel good, knock yourself out. Or maybe stop taking crpa intentionally out of context, since I note you focus on the butthurt in your reply and no the "meat and potatoes" you claim your OP was about.

Maybe you should check the tone of your own posts before pointing fingers.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

FupDup, on 21 April 2015 - 06:32 PM, said:

That's a very bad analogy, because different ice cream flavors are all subjectively measured against each other rather than objectively.

Its also bad analogy as this isnt a Battletech game, its a Mechwarrior game... loosely

And Bish, I wish the Urbie looked like that lol

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 21 April 2015 - 06:39 PM.

[Ted Wayz]

I think you miss the point. It is a matter of taste.

Same with this game. You can quirk the crap out of certain mechs and people will not play them as they do not suit their taste.

The competitive people don't care. Thy just min/max the best chassis. The F2P crowd doesn't care as long as they have some survivability from the second they drop in. At the end of the day people usually pilot what feels right to them.

It is a matter of taste. And in most cases the choice for ice cream over no ice cream means they will forgo preference....because it is ice cream.

Edited by Ted Wayz, 21 April 2015 - 06:43 PM.

[FupDup]

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

You are once again doing nothing but saying that all Mechs need to be equal or they are not worth using, therefore make them all equal. They do NOT all need to be equal, matter of fact Russ stated outright that not all Mechs are viable for competitive play, including real world cash only Mechs. This is by design, some Mechs will be meh, some ok, some good, some great.

Russ saying something doesn't instantly make it gospel, and he's actually said some questionable things in certain instances (like that "island" comment).

So far you're not really explaining what particular benefits that having "Tier 5" mechs provides. So get specific here, what do you think that unused mechs like the Spider 5V add to the game?

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

And using a Tier 5 Mech and having fun in it has nothing to do with superior skill, it has to do with having fun with a Mech that isn't optimal because sometimes that's more fun. THAT is why you see them in Puglandia, because lots of people just want to have fun with a Mech because it speaks to them for whatever reason, nostalgia for BTech games 30 years ago, MW games from 20 to 15 years ago, it LOOKS cool, whatever, it speaks to them so they use it. I have my Urby R60L in my CW dropdeck and I have a blast with it, I used them in TT a long time ago, it brings back fond memories, especially when I'm gutted and dead because a Timberwolf glances in my direction.

How many people do you think had nostalgia memories about ERPPC boating Thunderbolts, 6LL Stalkers, laser vomit Mad Cats, or SPL boating Firestarters?

The reason Puglandia got more diverse was specifically because of the Quirkening patch and other various buffs (like the Pulse Laser pass in November). I don't agree with every quirk value or type they used, or which mechs received them, but my Puglandia experience has been improved by seeing more mechs and guns being used since that fateful patch. I have to actually be cautious around more mechs instead of almost ignoring every mech except a special few. I've actually been killed by mechs like Dragons and Hunchbacks.

Mount Tryhard hasn't really benefited from this, but it also isn't really any worse than it used to be either.

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

Your definition of balance is not what PGI is doing in MWO, it's not ever been done in the BTech TT game or the previous MW video games, ever, and that's always been one of the draws to the game, it's NOT balanced 1 for 1, it's asymmetrical, A does NOT counter B but it might counter D, and C might counter A in certain conditions but it always counters Z which counters B in certain other conditions, etc.

In Battletech, it's not about asymmetrical counter systems. Battletech Tabletop isn't the game where A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A to complete the cycle. Battletech Tabletop is the game where Z beats everything and D gets beaten by everything.

That is exactly what I'm opposed to, I'm all about enforcing tradeoffs and a process of give-and-take rather than just all givegivegive or taketaketake...something which BT was probably lacking in, but I want anyways.


Previous games doing or not doing something isn't a strong reason to do or not to do something.

Edited by FupDup, 21 April 2015 - 06:54 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

I would love to see one thing with quirks. Data for only base variants which have not been elited. Currently as one progresses through a skill tree all skills except the ones that cannot apply to a particular variant or chassis (like torso twist range for Urbies and Arm movement for most Cicadas (I still like my useless flapping shields and they need to flap faster damnit)). Some like the cool down quirk and fire rate quirk stack very nicely with them. Then there are the modules that change these even more. Are those not even being considered in quirk design? Because those are the kind of things that create metas.

Skills already need an overhaul anyway. But not only do some of the more absurd quirks need to be reconsidered or at least have their numbers dialed way back. If you want to give a 'Mech something like 50% cooldown for all energy, an additional 50% cooldown for a specific weapon becomes redundant.

The funny thing I have found about quirks is it actually makes some builds less viable because they are so incredibly outperformed by the new meta for a variant the quirks favor. If you want to quirk a 'Mech at least do not force it to specialize. I still proudly run my CN9-D Gauss Cent in spite of the LB-X meta. Granted, I ran it because I love it and I despised the triple SRM meta which had formed around it so maybe I just run what I have fun with. The one thing which has happened with quirks is they seem to have, by no means, encouraged players to go closer to stock.

As Bishop has pointed out they are being used to bandaid deeper problems. A good example is Hoverjets ™. When I read about how they were looking at fixing the Highlander and other jumpers with underperforming jets I got excited. Then I saw the word quirks and was appalled. You do not fix things like that. You look at how the system went wrong and fix that. In this case jump jet changes when horribly wrong for Assaults and became useless. It is a matter of how jump jets function on a basic level. Other 'Mechs don't have issues with Hoverjets ™ right? Wrong, I find any 'Mech with 3 or fewer jets has performance issues for just jets. Not bad until you remember that all jumpers have a jet cap specific to the variant. I like my Shawks, Wolverines, and Griffins, but the jump jet change killed performance on all variants capped at 3 jets. This is not something which should be fixed through quirks. It should be recognized that the jet scaling system meant to prevent one jet bunny hoppers and poptarts has failed because it does not scale to a 'Mech's specific jump jet cap, but rather to a simple number count. A system great for Jenners and Spiders with their copious quantities of jets, not so much for anything else. This is not something you fix with quirks, this is something you fix by digging into the code and figuring out how to get it to do what you want.

Sigilum Sanctum, on 21 April 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Please don't take my super tanky Zeus away from me

You would not need tanky quirks if quirks were not already playing merry hell with weapons.

Quirks are for gross shortcomings (temporarily, bandaids are supposed to come off after all), fine tuning, or to give a specific flair to a chassis. ER PPC quirks for the Awesome? Great idea. ER PPC quirks for the Thunderbolt? Not so much. Most Awesomes are designed around their PPCs, giving them something to encourage that is good. Thunderbolts are generalist combat build and should not be quirked to any specific weapons... Ever. Why would you put SRM quirks to a Griffin, this is not what it was designed for, this is prevailing, effective meta. You never quirk to such, because it stomps out everything else.

Personally, I find the very core behind the balance issues in MWO is because someone did not ask "Why?" enough. That is how you problem solve. You ask "Why?" about all sorts of things not just one likely reason.
Real world example of how what I am talking about works.
"Well, it burned out." is not an answer to the question "Why did this lathe break?", just brings up the first symptom of the problem. The next question would be "Why did it burn out?" answered by "It did not get enough oil." "Why was it not getting enough oil?" "The oil filter got clogged." "How did the oil filter get clogged?" "It filled up with shavings." That last one is the problem. Solution? A $10 screen to catch shavings and routine emptying of said screen to keep a $120,000 lathe from burning out on a regular basis. Constantly asking "Why?" is not just something small children do to annoy people, it is how to find the root cause of a problem. It can take in very unexpected directions. Workers just up and taking off and/or getting injured frequently on and off the clock? Initial assumption: lazy or bad workers. Actual problems: end of summer, burn out from working lots of overtime because a major (and recently completed) contract fell behind schedule, and poor process practices. Maybe PGI should stop just looking at the data and find out why the data is the way it is.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 21 April 2015 - 07:33 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

All said and done, I wouldn't put any stock in a sweep-reset. That would be a reset to pre-quirks, and for the majority of the chassis we already know what that's like and that it's not right.

That said, there seems to be a tendency not to reexamine quirks (or any changes, in fact) unless there's a huge amount of outcry about them (rarely works) or some random chance comes up (seems to be the main prompt for change)- I can't find any other explanation for why the Grid Iron is pumping out Gauss at that rate and the one Dragon is firing a long-range AC/10 (pair of AC/5) at AC/2 rates or better, but the Awesome's structure quirks haven't changed since they were put in despite the Zeus now being ridiculously better at tanking damage even without taking hitboxes into account.

PGI has a lot of problems still lingering that look like they're teething problems from a new game developer-

• Game changes are often large at first and then get reduced in scale, rather than being small and slowly working their way up until they reach a balance point.
  
• Changes that prove too powerful are often completely removed or heavily scaled back while being replaced with other changes either without a try at scaling back or without a try at scaling back and making no other changes to that particular element.
  
• Some changes seem to be essentially blind flailing in the dark to try and find something good, resulting in weird random things like the presence of ballistic cooldown quirks on things that tend to use machine guns, projectile speed quirks on things that tend to use the already-blisteringly-fast Gauss rifle, ghost heat to reduce alpha striking and boating, et cetera.
  
• Poor communication is a hallmark of the company's interactions with customers.
  
• Developers are reacting in ways that show they aren't thinking at all about how their reactions alter the customers' perceptions of them.

I like that PGI is trying, when I can tell they're trying, but sometimes it's hard to tell and a lot of the time it looks like the company as a whole doesn't learn from its own mistakes very quickly. This same problem is now applying to quirks, just as it has to other things (Large Laser variant heat differences, attempts to solve poptarting, ghost heat).

It -is- appreciable that Tina has started those two topics up in the Dev Outreach forum, but it's discouraging that nothing has been said about what kind of response will be prompted by them, and while I don't agree with those who think that feedback shouldn't be attempted, I do understand that this is mostly because customers/players have been badly discouraged by the frequent lack of sane/rational response to such.


In the end, what I'd like to see and what I hope to see is the quirks being gone over very carefully and adjusted to saner levels (with nothing getting ridiculous 50% boosts and virtually nothing getting extreme 30% boosts) and used to do more than just make weapons better for certain 'mechs- which is the majority of what they do currently- but what I expect to see is noises to the effect that something will be done and then a start gotten.... doing things that a lot of players complain about (I make no judgement as to whether or not that complaining will be justified) and then left off after a while, to only be followed up very gradually and slowly.

Like the geometry/hitbox passes. There are still a things out there whose pelvises count as CT and whose exteriors don't reflect their weapons.


(On a side note, can anyone explain to me why the Cataphract's hitbox pass changed the left arm launcher from 4 to 6 tubes? Regardless that I liked it better as a 4-tube launcher, no comment was given in the relevant patch about that change, and I don't recall anyone complaining about it at all...)

[Deathlike]

I gave up trying to figure out PGI with regards to these things.

I'm not paid to do this, but I care enough that it needs some fixing.

It's not enough honestly, so it is what it is.

[Postumus]

Considering that weapon quirks literally breathed new life into dozens of totally superfluous IS mechs, no they are not overdone. The Dragon got insane cooldown quirks because it was that bad, and it still isn't a top tier mech, because all of its ballistic hardpoints are in a single, not-very-armored arm, and dakka mechs have to expose their center torso every second they want to do damage. Same goes for the other mechs you mentioned - the Thud 9S and locust 1V were literally garbage before quirks. The 50% ERPPC cooldown was a little excessive, but that got taken down to 25% several patches back.

There are certain weapons that need to be buffed across the board (AC/10, LBX10, PPCs, flamers, MGs, AC/2) but by and large they aren't the weapons that are getting quirked, so again, weapon quirks aren't the problem.

Edited by Postumus, 21 April 2015 - 08:10 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Postumus, on 21 April 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

Considering that weapon quirks literally breathed new life into dozens of totally superfluous IS mechs, no they are not overdone. The Dragon got insane cooldown quirks because it was that bad, and it still isn't a top tier mech, because all of its ballistic hardpoints are in a single, not-very-armored arm, and dakka mechs have to expose their center torso every second they want to do damage.

I know this seems valid at first, but the fact that you're talking about the quirks for one of the five Dragon as though it and the particular hardpoints that it applies to are in all of them is rather telling.

The difficulties the Dragon has are not because of its hardpoints and weapons, but because of its hitboxes and agility. Sensibly speaking, any quirks given to Dragon variants should first be because of and/or mitigating this, not because ballistic 'mechs have to stay exposed, otherwise whatever change should be getting applied to all ballistic 'mechs that have similar hardpoint issues uniformly first (and with variances after testing with uniform state).

[Telmasa]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 21 April 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

I know this seems valid at first, but the fact that you're talking about the quirks for one of the five Dragon as though it and the particular hardpoints that it applies to are in all of them is rather telling.

The difficulties the Dragon has are not because of its hardpoints and weapons, but because of its hitboxes and agility. Sensibly speaking, any quirks given to Dragon variants should first be because of and/or mitigating this, not because ballistic 'mechs have to stay exposed, otherwise whatever change should be getting applied to all ballistic 'mechs that have similar hardpoint issues uniformly first (and with variances after testing with uniform state).

Well, the King Crab is basically two Dragons glued side by side together, so why not give the King Crab 50% cooldown (amongst other buffs) as well?

Breaking weapon balance is bad. Anything affecting DPS or HPS too strongly is bad.

[Y E O N N E]

Postumus, on 21 April 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

Considering that weapon quirks literally breathed new life into dozens of totally superfluous IS mechs, no they are not overdone. The Dragon got insane cooldown quirks because it was that bad, and it still isn't a top tier mech, because all of its ballistic hardpoints are in a single, not-very-armored arm, and dakka mechs have to expose their center torso every second they want to do damage. Same goes for the other mechs you mentioned - the Thud 9S and locust 1V were literally garbage before quirks. The 50% ERPPC cooldown was a little excessive, but that got taken down to 25% several patches back.

There are certain weapons that need to be buffed across the board (AC/10, LBX10, PPCs, flamers, MGs, AC/2) but by and large they aren't the weapons that are getting quirked, so again, weapon quirks aren't the problem.

The Locust 1V doesn't really play any differently than it did pre-quirk. You can poke from farther away for whatever laser you choose, and that's about it.

I think all of the weapons need to be looked at and reworked, not just those. 270 meters on a medium laser is almost a non-starter these days, and just forget about the base range on small, small pulse, and medium pulse. Large lasers are in the awkward position of being out-classed by the C-ERML rounding down, and the ERLL rounding up. PPCs and ERPPCs are too slow and too hot, and yet still usually a better option than the AC/10. So what do we have that's consistently good without quirks? The AC/5, the UAC/5, and the ERLL. Hmmm.

And that doesn't even consider the Clan deficiencies, yet.

[Mystic Geologist]

I would agree with the sentiment that quirks should be tailored to the "canon" role, and that they are too extreme at this point in time (they could be cut down by 50-66% on several mechs and still leave the mechs viable for competitive play {I am talking about quirks that are in the 50% range rather than the 5-15% range [25% on the outside]}).

If I was allowed to I would strip most of the specific weapons quirks from mechs (so no more SRM 4 quirks, but allowing for for general SRM quirks, but preferably having missile quirks). To get a quirk the mech has to have relavent weapons mounted (why the urbanmech R60 got MG quirks is beyond me). These quirks would be focused on what does the most damage or what it has the most of. For the toughness quirks it would make sense to have the armor/structure quirks help balance out the fact that mechs have specific geometries and poor hitboxes. Also instead of more quirks potentially adding additional hard points for "large weapons" (which may leading to increased problems boating).

Here are a couple of examples of what I am trying to say (and my thought process):
Awesome 9M: The stock build has 3 ER PPCs, 1 MPL, 1 SPL, and 2 SSRM 2. This is a mech designed to be tough and for long running engagements (according to my TROs and Sarna).
The hard point changes I would make are striping 1 E, 1 M off of the CT, and adding 1 E to the RT, LT, & RA (bulky weapons should "create" hard points in my opinion).
The side torsos would get a boost to toughness (based off of the areas between side and center torsos compared with the amount of stock armor found in each zone). In terms of weapon quirks there would be definite energy quirks (reduced heat, reduced cooldown, etc), with general PPC quirk perhaps to round it out (decreased spread, increased interference on the target, etc. {the speed it needs anyway so it shouldn't be a quirk}). The SRMs would also get a very minor quirk. Later if it was found to be still lacking, increasing the effects would be in order.

My other example that I have time to type up right now is the Catapult A1
The stock build here has 2 LRM 15s, it has a role of being a fire support mech.
Hard points seem about right.
In terms of toughness quirks, I believe that the center torso is over exposed from the geometry (correct me if I am wrong)
Missile quirks be what the A1 would get (missile spread, range, cooldown etc), it could potentially get it a quirk that would make the minimum distance of LRMs to be a soft rather than hard cutoff (like clan LRMs). It could also get increased lock durations, in keeping with the fire support theme.

I do hope my post gave you something to think about, even if you disagree with my train of thought and opinions

[STEF_]

Xetelian, on 21 April 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

Without the machinegun fast AC5s this mech is complete trash. Changing the hitboxes can only accomplish so much...and not enough to make this mech go from bad to good.

Weapon quirks, even the really high ones, still haven't done enough for many of the chassis that need help.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b8371891dee6dcb

28 Alpha and 4 DPS (though I don't think the DPS means anything).

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0cfe904f82c561d

28 Alpha 5 DPS and 4 JJs.

Same engines
Without the quirks for the AC 5 the dragon can't perform on the level of a Cataphract with Ultra AC5s.
With quirks the AC5 fires as fast as the 2 Ultra AC5s would double tapped bringing the dragon up to the Cataphract level.

If it had great Laser bonuses to go with the AC bonus it'd be even better.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0ab970a8c8d2575

32 Alpha 5 DPS with 2 JJs.

Ultimately we want all 3 to pack similar power, level the playing field a little to give every mech a chance.

These quirks for the DRG are now essential and should be since it can't compete at 60 tons with 70 and 75 ton mechs.

Power creep is a necessary evil if we want more available options for what Heavy to bring.


I'm talking exclusively about PUG queue and not clan war where weight is a factor.

I can understand your point, but I'm not agree that a 60 tonner should perform like a 70 or a (clan) 75 one.
Because this 3/3/3/3 or 1/1/1/1 concept (that all heavies, or light etc. must have similar performances to be viable) brings us to the situation we have.

A tonnage based drop for both teams, and tuning the subpar mechs without over quirking, them would have been a better solution, for pugs or group drops too
(for instance, "tuning" for dragon means more ct armor....and for all the dragons!, because you can see that the only dragon in the battelfield is the 1N.... and the other ones??)

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 21 April 2015 - 09:18 PM.

[Xetelian]

Stefka Kerensky, on 21 April 2015 - 09:13 PM, said:

I can understand your point, but I'm not agree that a 60 tonner should perform like a 70 or a (clan) 75 one.
Because this 3/3/3/3 or 1/1/1/1 concept (that all heavies, or light etc. must have similar performances to be viable) brings us to the situation we have.

A tonnage based drop for both teams, and tuning the subpar mechs without over quirking, them would have been a better solution, for pugs or group drops too
(for instance, "tuning" for dragon means more ct armor....and for all the dragons!, because you can see that the only dragon in the battelfield is the 1N.... and the other ones??)

What exactly are you calling 'over quirking' because that's entirely subjective. I had no issue with the TDR PPC quirks or the 6 LL stalker or any others.

In battletech your units can be fielded in a lot of ways but ultimately you want roughly even teams this is why 2 lances to every star and tonnage brought mattered. Tonnage based match making would likely be insanely complicated and take longer than our 3+ minute wait times as they are now.

Here in the world that is F2P FPS based loosely on Battletech we NEED balance. Unbalanced games don't sell well and when everyone plays the same thing you lose variety and flavor.

60 DRG vs 70 CTF is only 10 tons and that makes all the difference between taking AC5s vs UAC5s.

The DRG, CTF and TBR are all Heavies, and all Heavies should perform the Heavy role not just the TBRs. Balancing the DRG, or making it more powerful because of its severe lack of power as a heavy is not a bad thing. Now we see 1 dragon and it isn't even often enough to call it 'over quirked' regardless of its 50% boost to AC5s. This adds flavor and variety to the Heavy class and doesn't take anything away from anyone.

Why do you think they're working so hard to come up with NERFs for the SCR TBR and DWF? They're all I see any more and that is for a reason.

[Lily from animove]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

Perfect Balance, heck no.

Perfect Imbalance, on the other hand, is the ideal.

All Mechs should be viable against one another, to the point where better skill should allow a lesser mech to best a better mech with a worse pilot. And not talking Comp vs Underhive (As we all know players who could take a pre-quirk locust and beat a bad in a Timberwolf). But two relatively similar skill level players, but not equal.
And I got no issue with quirks being used as a final finishing touch to make that happen. But I do dislike them relying on quirks to make stuff viable.


I can't fully agree with this. The delayed convergence we had in CB, IMO was just about right. (Even if hitreg back then made today's hitreg look golden, lol). Really a shame they can't seem to make delayed convergence and HSR coexist.

No convergence stuff pleas. in onlinegames this has not purpose. It's by design a failing system which gives just everyone with higher latency a massive disadvantage. and totallyscrews up the balance. Since quick light mechs will now benefir and be even more untouchable, While poeple will not move anymore and just camp and wait until the other coms around a corner.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

TT Style Heat Effects as one creeps up the heat scale. The hard locked heat cap some propose not only really doesn't make a lot of sense, it's not "lore" either. Because the way cooling in lore worked, your heat sinks effectively DID add to the cap, since it was all factored together end of turn.

at 16% on your heat bar, you see minor speed reduction. by about 30% you see a minor flickering to your HUD and reticle, maybe a 1/10th second longer lock time. By around 40%, your speed is further reduced, and your HUD issues are worse. You start running into possible overheats and if you maintain your heat over 50%, you start risking potential ammo cook offs, etc.

Mind you, I would say you would need to modify and condense it, so that the Basic heat effect scale doesn't actually start til say 50% is reached, and the first minor effects start at like 55%, and scale from there, but the basic idea is sound, I believe.

Basically instead of "Run Hot or Die", you get back to the Battletech Maxim of "Run Hot AND Die". It would certainly put a damper in rampant alphas and such.

yeah thats a problem with heat penalties. Because we have a live game, and TT was turn based.
But maybe we could implement a second heatscale.
So heatscale one is like the current and capped at 30 its the weapon heatscale.
Heatscale 2 is the mech heatscale. it gets heat from heatscale 1. slowly over time, until it reaches heatscale 1's heat. So when someone constantly stays at 80% wepaonheat, the other scale will reach that amoutn as well. And heat penalties will start to take place.
If someone fires an alpha gettign fully heatscale 1. heatscale 2 will slowly build up. But if heatscale 1 dissipates fast enough, he may then end up with heatscale 1 at 20% and heatscale 2 at 50%. which then means heatscale 1 is lower than heatscale 2. and this will make heatscale 2 decrease again.

But just a quick idea.

Edited by Lily from animove, 22 April 2015 - 02:04 AM.

[Roadbuster]

627, on 20 April 2015 - 10:28 PM, said:

We have the situation that people aren't looking for a mech but its quirks.

^ this

[Omi_]

Completely agreed. I wish I could play mechs that were naturally well performing again. Now, I quirk-shop before anything happens.

[Wintersdark]

Was there a new set of quirks that prompted this thread? Or is it about the old quirks? As it stands, PGI does look like they've got a bit gun shy with new quirks, as per the clan mechs. Or did I miss something?