282 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Artgathan, on 22 April 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

Aye, but just because MW:O inherited the imbalance doesn't mean that nothing should be done to correct it. I also run 90%+ armor most of the time (most of it forward-facing, for other reasons), and I seriously doubt that there exists a significant number of players who don't.

Situations like this are just a shame because it removes choice from the game.

The only ways to "fix" it are to either make armor weaker/heavier (fewer points per ton), or makes guns deal more damage per ton.

I've just grown to accept it, and I would prefer other methods for differentiating mech durability than an armor cap. Stuff like hitboxes, agility (good torso twist can help with surviving), and even quirks (when used in moderation) don't seem to have as much potential ripple-effect.

Edited by FupDup, 22 April 2015 - 12:56 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

FupDup, on 21 April 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:

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?



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.



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.

Russ's comment is actually quite on target, it was a specific comment directed at the P2W worries. Not all Mechs will be good for competition, including the real world cash only Mechs, this IS by design, this is NOT a mistake or just something they do for the real world cash only Mechs. Just as in BTech, some Mechs are great, some are good, most are ok or meh, and MWO has actually been real close on following the TT in that regards, exceptions made for Lights, and it's understandable that they made Lights far more survivable than TT has them, that's a compromise that must be made, along with making it so that an Assault is not the autowin they usually are in TT.

And why must a Mech have some special reason for existing in the game? Why can't they simply be there because they are part of the actual game universe? The Urby is a prime example of this, there is no NEED for the Urby, but we've pleaded, begged, cried, whined and demanded it from the time this game was announced, and we FINALLY got it. I don't see them being used very often now that people have them Mastered, do you? So why was it added? Because we wanted it. Why did we want it? Because of nostalgia, it's a classic BTech icon, the ultimate underdog Mech, pretty damn worthless no matter what you do with it, but so what, it's still fun.

You are far too hung up on each Mech having a specific reason for existing, and outside of 1 chassis per Class, which is really pushing it to be honest, 1 chassis period would do best, there is NO reason for anything else to exist, especially not if balance is all you are striving for. Most Mechs are simply there to sell merchandise, that's it, they literally exist for no other reason than FASA wanted to sell more TROs and addons and supplements. In MWO they really exist for no other reason as well, they are merchandise that we buy simply because we want them.

IF TRUE balance is what you seek, as you keep claiming, then we would need to redo the game from the ground up, it should be the Clans, so we can have Factions to pick from and have the best Tech, and there should be 1 Mech to use with no customization of anything but cosmetics. That's it, that's the ONLY way you'll achieve balance. How far do you see THAT game going?

And so far, I'm not seeing quirks making ALL the chassis types usable or viable, so how exactly are the quirks making more Mechs viable and used? I see 1 Dragon in the field anymore, the 1N, and that's it, I don't see the other variants or the Heros being used, just the 1N. I don't see all kinds of Stalkers either, just the one that has the stupidly high laser quirks. Shall I continue? Quirks are NOT opening up more chassis types or variants and making them usable, they are only opening up 1 specific variant for specific chassis types and that's it.

I already showed exactly how the Dragon's should be quirked, mobility and armor quirks to compensate for that huge CT, armor on the arms to account for it's melee strength(the REAL reason Kurita loved it), along with a negative quirk to turning or accel due to faulty hip actuators according to the lore for the Dragon. THAT makes ALL the Dragon variants more viable without making any specific one better than the others because it has a stupidly high weapon quirk that allows it to outperform Mechs 10 to 15 tons heavier.

And I don't know what kind of BTech you played, but when we played it in the 80s and early 90s, it was a very asymmetrical balance system. We played long before the Clans and pretty much stopped after the Invasion, mainly because the Clans totally ruined the asymmetrical system that existed prior and made it more like you describe, where Z overpowers all. Previous MW titles kept the asymmetrical system mainly due to them all being Clan based, even the ones that included IS Tech allowed free use of Clan/IS Tech on anything, so it was effectively all Clan. They were also single player games first and foremost, so the balance was always in the player's favor to begin with, the multiplayer was never balanced at all, that was left to the players themselves to figure out, and just looking at all the different ways that was accomplished shows how it was not built in. When we created NBT in '96, we were fully aware of the differences between Clan and IS Tech because MW2:Mercs actually used the full TT values and we had a full Tech restriction by Faction. Everyone else was allowing full crosstech because it's not BALANCED otherwise, IS was clearly outclassed in every way by the Clans. Oddly enough, NBT seasons usually had the Clans losing, not the IS. Balance isn't always what it seems to be, especially not when personal skill of the players involved is factored in. Something that MUST be remembered at all times, balance does NOT exist in a vacuum, never has, never will, not when human influence is involved.

[Black Arachne]

What...people didn't like Rapid Fire PPC's from a thunderbolt (65T mech)....still boggles me to this day why the Awesome (80T) wasn't capable of this. How bout PGI actually fix the game instead of digging the hole deeper.

Oh and let's not forgot about a medium mech carrying 3 Large Pulse Lasers.

Edited by Black Arachne, 22 April 2015 - 01:21 PM.

[Dawnstealer]

I think there should be a "Dawnstealer Quirk" where all players named, say, "Dawnstealer" get a +100% velocity bump to every weapon and -100% heat.

Amirite, guys?







Guys?

[Wintersdark]

Krostov, that's a large load of crap.

Balance exists outside of players, because you can't just hope that your magic beans work and the bad players choose the stronger faction and the good players choose the weaker faction. We've already seen big merc companies swap factions over balance changes!

The reality is total power is the sum of the mech and the pilot (more emphasis on pilot), but in order to have good balance the mechs need to be close enough that mech choice is not a dominant factor. People want to win or lose on their own merits, not because of their faction choice.

Mechs need a reason to exist, something they offer that other mechs don't. Subtle hardpoint differences, quirk differences, whatever. But they need something. It doesn't need to be a specific role, just something different that makes them unique. See: Urbie torso twist.

And as I said, they don't need to all be exactly equal (as that's impossible to attain with so many moving parts) but they need to be good enough that you don't get screwed by a teammate bringing an objectively bad mech.

This is all basically PvP game design 101. I don't care about how things worked out in your NBT league, this isn't that. For MWO to continue being successful and appealing to more than the most hardcore fans (and I say this as a moderately hardcore fan myself) it still needs to be a good PvP multiplayer game.

For balance, core rule ignore.

[FupDup]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Russ's comment is actually quite on target, it was a specific comment directed at the P2W worries. Not all Mechs will be good for competition, including the real world cash only Mechs, this IS by design, this is NOT a mistake or just something they do for the real world cash only Mechs. Just as in BTech, some Mechs are great, some are good, most are ok or meh, and MWO has actually been real close on following the TT in that regards, exceptions made for Lights, and it's understandable that they made Lights far more survivable than TT has them, that's a compromise that must be made, along with making it so that an Assault is not the autowin they usually are in TT.

I'm pretty sure it's more about dumb luck in many cases than a deliberate process of "let's make Mech A useless!" Well, at least not in MWO. FASA was pretty saddistic so I can imagine them doing that for the original game. MWO mechs are more of a wheel-of-fortune thing, like how the Shadow Hawk managed to be good.

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

And why must a Mech have some special reason for existing in the game? Why can't they simply be there because they are part of the actual game universe? The Urby is a prime example of this, there is no NEED for the Urby, but we've pleaded, begged, cried, whined and demanded it from the time this game was announced, and we FINALLY got it. I don't see them being used very often now that people have them Mastered, do you? So why was it added? Because we wanted it. Why did we want it? Because of nostalgia, it's a classic BTech icon, the ultimate underdog Mech, pretty damn worthless no matter what you do with it, but so what, it's still fun.

MWO made the Urbie an actually viable choice. And I'm glad it turned out okay, because I think it's pretty stupid to design a game where you lose if somebody on your team just so happens to use a certain mech. I like knowing that we have a shot at winning even if my team has an Urbie or several.

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

You are far too hung up on each Mech having a specific reason for existing, and outside of 1 chassis per Class, which is really pushing it to be honest, 1 chassis period would do best, there is NO reason for anything else to exist, especially not if balance is all you are striving for. Most Mechs are simply there to sell merchandise, that's it, they literally exist for no other reason than FASA wanted to sell more TROs and addons and supplements. In MWO they really exist for no other reason as well, they are merchandise that we buy simply because we want them.

Mechs in BT are either placeholder filler or power creep.

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

IF TRUE balance is what you seek, as you keep claiming, then we would need to redo the game from the ground up, it should be the Clans, so we can have Factions to pick from and have the best Tech, and there should be 1 Mech to use with no customization of anything but cosmetics. That's it, that's the ONLY way you'll achieve balance. How far do you see THAT game going?

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of what "balance" means.

Balance doesn't mean Gun A does 5.34 DPS and Gun B does 5.34 DPS. Balance means that Gun A's risk/reward is similar in ratio to Gun B's, and both have respective roles that they are better at than the other.

For example, a Gauss having more range and less heat than an AC/20, but the AC/20 gets more damage and durability (doesn't explode). You can chose either gun for your playstyle and both are effective choices. They're balanced against each other nicely.

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

And so far, I'm not seeing quirks making ALL the chassis types usable or viable, so how exactly are the quirks making more Mechs viable and used? I see 1 Dragon in the field anymore, the 1N, and that's it, I don't see the other variants or the Heros being used, just the 1N. I don't see all kinds of Stalkers either, just the one that has the stupidly high laser quirks. Shall I continue? Quirks are NOT opening up more chassis types or variants and making them usable, they are only opening up 1 specific variant for specific chassis types and that's it.

I already showed exactly how the Dragon's should be quirked, mobility and armor quirks to compensate for that huge CT, armor on the arms to account for it's melee strength(the REAL reason Kurita loved it), along with a negative quirk to turning or accel due to faulty hip actuators according to the lore for the Dragon. THAT makes ALL the Dragon variants more viable without making any specific one better than the others because it has a stupidly high weapon quirk that allows it to outperform Mechs 10 to 15 tons heavier.

I also think that Dragon quirks weren't chosen the best way (I would focus more on agility/mobility along with armor/internals to make up for geometry/hitboxes), but even then I still see more Dragons now than I did pre-quirks. The 1N might have been the luckiest, but even just seeing one variant of the chassis is more than what we used to see (which was no variants at all, 1 > 0).

You seem to be criticizing specific examples of quirks and then generalizing them to say that quirks are bad as a whole. That's not the case. PGI just made some silly choices for some mechs. That doesn't make the overall idea of the system bad, it just means their specific choices could use revision.

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

...Oddly enough, NBT seasons usually had the Clans losing, not the IS. ...

Now imagine how much more drastically they would have won if they had used Clan tech of their own in those fights. They didn't win because of the IS tech, they won in spite of it. If you can win a fight with one hand tied behind your back, you can become a destroyer of worlds by using both hands.

For Z beating everything, I'm referring to certain items that were just better than their other choices. For example, a PPC pretty handle beat an AC/5 or AC/10 outside of MWO, because of being heavier but not giving much in return. Or spamming multiple LRM5 was better than using larger tubes, because of saving weight and getting more crit rolls (1 crit roll per launcher). Gauss was pretty crazy and easily beat the majority of weapons available in BT, with its amazing blend of range, damage, and low heat. There are also very highly optimized supermechs like the Devastator, Hellstar, Wulfen, Blood Asp, etc. that didn't have any real drawbacks and were basically perfection. And there's also the entire Clan techbase...

There were also guns that were just pure trash and not really good for much, like the AC/2. Don't say "but anti-air!" because the LRM5 does 50% more damage to aircraft (TechManual says 3 damage to aerospace), and there are also other AA choices (like the Clan LPL for cheesemode). The IS Small Laser was another example, where having 1 ML was pretty much always better than 2 SL because the 2 SL sacrificed a lot of range but didn't do any more damage in exchange. And there's things like X-Pulse Lasers with stupid high heat, the mediocre Large Laser (450m range weapon with the same damage per heat as the 540m PPC? WTF?). There are also countless mechs that are really poorly designed...

Edited by FupDup, 22 April 2015 - 01:47 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Wintersdark, on 22 April 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Krostov, that's a large load of crap.

Balance exists outside of players, because you can't just hope that your magic beans work and the bad players choose the stronger faction and the good players choose the weaker faction. We've already seen big merc companies swap factions over balance changes!

The reality is total power is the sum of the mech and the pilot (more emphasis on pilot), but in order to have good balance the mechs need to be close enough that mech choice is not a dominant factor. People want to win or lose on their own merits, not because of their faction choice.

Mechs need a reason to exist, something they offer that other mechs don't. Subtle hardpoint differences, quirk differences, whatever. But they need something. It doesn't need to be a specific role, just something different that makes them unique. See: Urbie torso twist.

And as I said, they don't need to all be exactly equal (as that's impossible to attain with so many moving parts) but they need to be good enough that you don't get screwed by a teammate bringing an objectively bad mech.

This is all basically PvP game design 101. I don't care about how things worked out in your NBT league, this isn't that. For MWO to continue being successful and appealing to more than the most hardcore fans (and I say this as a moderately hardcore fan myself) it still needs to be a good PvP multiplayer game.

For balance, core rule ignore.

It's not crap, it's a simple fact, if you want balance, true balance, you give the players 1 Mech with 1 weapon loadout and that's it, nothing else, otherwise there is no balance because different Mechs will not be balanced and different weapon loadouts will not be balanced. MW2-4 ladder leagues showed this very very well over the past 2 decades, weapon specific classes would always be dominated by 1 chassis per weight class and they would use the exact same weapons, because they were the most effective mixture. That was the balance, everyone used the same Mech with the same weapons, skill was the only factor that differed. Boring as hell from one perspective, but you definitely knew who was the most skilled SOB around without any question. No magic beans required, if you want true balance there is only one way to achieve it, remove all options from the players so that only personal skill has any influence, Basic Game Design 1.

And Mechs already have differences that make them unique, the geometry of the model and the placement of the hardpoints, nothing else is needed to justify them being added to the game. They don't NEED to be equal to or better than anything else in the same Class or even the same tonnage. The Shadowhawk, a Mech that was declared DOA before it ever entered the game, remember that? Same thing was declared for the Grasshopper, and so far, both of those declarations were totally wrong.

Fup, I don't want quirks removed, I want them redone so that weapon quirks ONLY get used when the fluff/lore justifies them, otherwise quirks should be mobility/armor/structure/sensor based, because when you start adding buffs to the weapons per chassis and variant, you totally negate ANY sort of balance the weapons might have already had. I'll go so far as to say that except for the obvious exceptions, ER/PPC velocity and Clan uAC/ACs, most of the weapons in MWO are in a good place overall. Quirks are making them totally stupid however, with the Stalker being able to out range and out DPS Clan Mechs due to it's LL quirks. The Dragon's AC quirks making it more powerful than Mechs 10-15 tons heavier. And there are other offenders, but each and every one of them is due to the weapon quirks they've been given and all without a lore/fluff based reason. Meanwhile, Mechs that SHOULD have weapon quirks due to lore/fluff like the Awesome are being ignored and being unable to do what the very lore they are from says they could do.

[Telmasa]

Kristov, it's two simple words:
Assymetrical Balance.

"In asymmetrical balance, the two sides are not identical, but differ from one another. However, the elements are arranged so that there is a sense of balance."

That quote I took was actually from a graphic design website, but it still fits perfectly for what folks are saying here. Exact & perfect equality =/= balance from a gameplay perspective.

___

That said, I entirely agree with your other two paragraphs.

Edited by Telmasa, 22 April 2015 - 03:20 PM.

[Xetelian]

The DRG 1N is the only DRG I ever see and that is because the quirks on the other 4 need adjusting. If they all had the same potential firepower they'd be used more.

Heavy mechs need to bring a certain amount of potential and its obvious that some quirks are better than others but that doesn't make them bad.

There isn't any POWERCREEP because these things are being directed they aren't 'creeping up' its a direct buff to an under performing mechs overall ability to perform.

Calling that powercreep is just a misnomer.

Edited by Xetelian, 22 April 2015 - 03:32 PM.

[Artgathan]

Xetelian, on 22 April 2015 - 03:32 PM, said:

The DRG 1N is the only DRG I ever see and that is because the quirks on the other 4 need adjusting. If they all had the same potential firepower they'd be used more.

Heavy mechs need to bring a certain amount of potential and its obvious that some quirks are better than others but that doesn't make them bad.

There isn't any POWERCREEP because these things are being directed they aren't 'creeping up' its a direct buff to an under performing mechs overall ability to perform.

Calling that powercreep is just a misnomer.

When the quirks displace the previous meta (because they're better than what was previously available), that's powercreep.

[Wintersdark]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

It's not crap, it's a simple fact, if you want balance, true balance, you give the players 1 Mech with 1 weapon loadout and that's it, nothing else, otherwise there is no balance because different Mechs will not be balanced and different weapon loadouts will not be balanced. MW2-4 ladder leagues showed this very very well over the past 2 decades, weapon specific classes would always be dominated by 1 chassis per weight class and they would use the exact same weapons, because they were the most effective mixture. That was the balance, everyone used the same Mech with the same weapons, skill was the only factor that differed. Boring as hell from one perspective, but you definitely knew who was the most skilled SOB around without any question. No magic beans required, if you want true balance there is only one way to achieve it, remove all options from the players so that only personal skill has any influence, Basic Game Design 1.

There's worlds of grey between "True Perfect Balance" and "haha lol Apples vs. Buicks". Yes, if everyone plays the same mech and loadout, you get perfect balance. At no point have I asked for this nor have I recommended it. In fact, I specifically stated in my post above that was not desirable.

But just saying that you either have to have everything be identical or simply ignore balance entirely is bordering on being deliberately obtuse.

As FupDup so eloquently says:

FupDup, on 22 April 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of what "balance" means.

Balance doesn't mean Gun A does 5.34 DPS and Gun B does 5.34 DPS. Balance means that Gun A's risk/reward is similar in ratio to Gun B's, and both have respective roles that they are better at than the other.

For example, a Gauss having more range and less heat than an AC/20, but the AC/20 gets more damage and durability (doesn't explode). You can chose either gun for your playstyle and both are effective choices. They're balanced against each other nicely.

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 April 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

And Mechs already have differences that make them unique, the geometry of the model and the placement of the hardpoints, nothing else is needed to justify them being added to the game. They don't NEED to be equal to or better than anything else in the same Class or even the same tonnage. The Shadowhawk, a Mech that was declared DOA before it ever entered the game, remember that? Same thing was declared for the Grasshopper, and so far, both of those declarations were totally wrong.

They don't need to be equal or better. You're constantly constructing straw men here, either deliberately or just due to a distressing lack of reading comprehension.

They do need to be - as I said in my post above - close enough that they are decent choices that don't substantially hinder your chances of success and in doing so impact your teammates as well. I'll restate my example from the last post.

In the old Tier system, bringing a Tier 5 mech actively harmed your team. Bringing a Tier 3 mech was generally fine, particularly if you were well accustomed to piloting that mech. You'll never have every mech being equal, but having all/most of the mechs in the old T1-3 sort of range really helps the game work smoother for everyone.

Quote

Fup, I don't want quirks removed, I want them redone so that weapon quirks ONLY get used when the fluff/lore justifies them, otherwise quirks should be mobility/armor/structure/sensor based, because when you start adding buffs to the weapons per chassis and variant, you totally negate ANY sort of balance the weapons might have already had. I'll go so far as to say that except for the obvious exceptions, ER/PPC velocity and Clan uAC/ACs, most of the weapons in MWO are in a good place overall. Quirks are making them totally stupid however, with the Stalker being able to out range and out DPS Clan Mechs due to it's LL quirks. The Dragon's AC quirks making it more powerful than Mechs 10-15 tons heavier. And there are other offenders, but each and every one of them is due to the weapon quirks they've been given and all without a lore/fluff based reason. Meanwhile, Mechs that SHOULD have weapon quirks due to lore/fluff like the Awesome are being ignored and being unable to do what the very lore they are from says they could do.

I do agree with this in most cases, even as a default quirk guideline. However, there are mechs that simply need more serious buffs. In general, I support Bishop's OP in this as well - there certainly are a lot of mechs that have really severe weapon quirks that go beyond "quirky" and instead are just absurd.

Telmasa, on 22 April 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

Kristov, it's two simple words:
Assymetrical Balance.

"In asymmetrical balance, the two sides are not identical, but differ from one another. However, the elements are arranged so that there is a sense of balance."

That quote I took was actually from a graphic design website, but it still fits perfectly for what folks are saying here. Exact & perfect equality =/= balance from a gameplay perspective.

___

That said, I entirely agree with your other two paragraphs.

Edited by Wintersdark, 22 April 2015 - 06:01 PM.

[Xetelian]

Artgathan, on 22 April 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

When the quirks displace the previous meta (because they're better than what was previously available), that's powercreep.

How have the quirks as a whole, changed the meta?

Good quirks on one (6 LL STK) doesn't make for a meta shift.

[Artgathan]

Xetelian, on 22 April 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

How have the quirks as a whole, changed the meta?

Good quirks on one (6 LL STK) doesn't make for a meta shift.

Have you not noticed the Firestarters running around? Previously only the Ember was considered top-tier, now it's regulated to second line duty. The Jenner has mostly disappeared, replaced by the Huggin/4X and the aforementioned FS9s. Thunderbolts were never touched and now they're pretty bountiful (and have edged out the dual Gauss/AC20 Jagermechs of yore). Shadowhawks have disappeared, replaced by Kintaros vomiting LRMs, Wolverines vomiting large lasers and Griffins vomiting SRMs - or Grid Irons lobbing Gauss Rounds like it's been left on automatic. All of this brought to you by quirks.

[FupDup]

Artgathan, on 22 April 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

Have you not noticed the Firestarters running around? Previously only the Ember was considered top-tier, now it's regulated to second line duty. The Jenner has mostly disappeared, replaced by the Huggin/4X and the aforementioned FS9s. Thunderbolts were never touched and now they're pretty bountiful (and have edged out the dual Gauss/AC20 Jagermechs of yore). Shadowhawks have disappeared, replaced by Kintaros vomiting LRMs, Wolverines vomiting large lasers and Griffins vomiting SRMs - or Grid Irons lobbing Gauss Rounds like it's been left on automatic. All of this brought to you by quirks.

To be fair, the Firestarter variants balancing was effected by several factors:

• MG nerfs hurt the Ember.
  
• Clan laser vomit arrives, which makes it easier to rip a hole in a light mech in one salvo. Sustained DPS (aka MGs) becomes less important/less safe for lights, so lights start to go further towards peeking at mid-long range.
  
• SPL/MPL buffs give a new choice for energy mechs, particularly fast ones...
  
• The non-Ember Firestarters got quirked, because they used to be mostly absent before the above factors took effect...

Edited by FupDup, 22 April 2015 - 06:57 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Id argue that while there are some problems with quirks, there are a pretty wide range of reasonably functional mechs. There will always be the top dogs, but as long as there's several top tier mechs and the difference between the top tier and the bulk of the rest is fairly small... I'm happy.

Sure, the other FS9's are more popular, but the ember is still a very capable light. As are most of the other lights, or at least a variant or two of each.

The same applies overall.

So while I still agree that there are mechs that have single quirks that are too large, or ones that don't make sense (re: they still need lots of tweaking) I think they've done more good than harm overall.

I'd have preferred other fixes first, particularly some weapon balance changes before just quirking everything, as other changes are a lot more dangerous and complex in a post quirk world.

But, spilled milk and all that. There's absolutely no point in complaining about what's done, and we need to be realistic about what happens going forwards. They're not going to throw out quirks, they're not going to totally overhaul them.

If you want to see positive change, post a thread with a small list of "Let's get these mechs fixed first.". Maybe 4 or so of the most egregious offenders (be they over or under quirked), your suggested changes and BRIEFLY the logic behind them.


Or we can keep fighting over something that won't accomplish anything. Whatever.

[Dirus Nigh]

Remember when weapon modules where supposed to let us get that costomized weapon boost? PGI tossed that out hte window when they put in this huge quirks that pretty much lock in specific builds on a mech.

Honestly I think PGI needs to scrap the quirks. THen look at the basic problems of the sytem as a whole, weapons, IW (lack there of), engines, and heat systems, then reapply quirks in a small scale.

Look at the list of quirks the average IS mech has now. All of those changes are just so a chassis, or variant, can be considered viable? That tells us some thing is very wrong here.

I think mechs should have very limited weapon quirks. At most they should be a weapon type, paired with a group or specific weapon. Which also keeps the original stock load out in mind. Any modifire from weapon quirks should not total more than 10%.

For example a mech like the Jager could have a ballistic bonus of 10%, or a ballistic of 5% with an AC5/AC2 5%. In any combination of range, velocity, cycle time, heat If the player wants a bigger bonus then they could put on a module for the AC5.

PGI has not mentioned their ideas for revamping the pilot skill tree. They really need to keep in mind how quirks, modules, and pilot skills work together.

[Wintersdark]

See, I don't disagree, but...

Dirus Nigh, on 22 April 2015 - 09:04 PM, said:

Remember when weapon modules where supposed to let us get that costomized weapon boost? PGI tossed that out hte window when they put in this huge quirks that pretty much lock in specific builds on a mech.

Because it was a terrible idea that didn't work, and wouldn't have worked. Modules that increase one factor at the expense of another factor are awesome fun for us mechlab junkies but ultimately just result in making any given "meta" worse.

Quote

Honestly I think PGI needs to scrap the quirks. THen look at the basic problems of the sytem as a whole, weapons, IW (lack there of), engines, and heat systems, then reapply quirks in a small scale.

My post above is referring to ideas like this. As I said, this would be an ideal solution, but:

IT WON'T HAPPEN. PGI will not scrap all that work and start again. They won't. Pretty much nobody with a launched game ever does anything like that, and PGI never has before. They've never even said they'd remotely consider anything like that. The resources have already been invested, they won't throw that away.

Don't argue that they should. It doesn't matter if they should. They won't.

Quote

Look at the list of quirks the average IS mech has now. All of those changes are just so a chassis, or variant, can be considered viable? That tells us some thing is very wrong here.

Well, not really. Most of the mechs with issues have them because:

A: The variant's hardpoints are horribly limited. Inflation can sometimes fix this, but wholesale changes can't happen or the BT folks will freak right out.
B: The variant's geometry is borked. This is not really fixable. Be it hardpoint placement (low hanging arms, etc) or simply geometry, the hard reality is that Mechs where visually designed in TT by (arguably terrible) artists with no consideration to how they'd work in a 3D game like MWO, and those guides had to be followed by PGI's artists adding the mech to MWO. As such, many mechs simply have poor shapes, and that's all there is to it. This can't be fixed. Thus, a Stalker is vastly superior to an Awesome before you even look at loadouts or consider hitboxes because it's shaped in a far more advantageous way.

This things just ARE, and need to be worked around. Quirks are not ideal, but they do help. As I said above, we do have problem mechs that need some tinkering (and PGI has been doing that), so posting some thoughts here would be productive. These are changes that CAN AND ARE HAPPENING.

Quote

I think mechs should have very limited weapon quirks. At most they should be a weapon type, paired with a group or specific weapon. Which also keeps the original stock load out in mind. Any modifire from weapon quirks should not total more than 10%.

That's highly arbitrary, but I don't entirely disagree. Still, there simply are mechs that are and will remain terrible under that guideline. I strongly think you'd need higher numbers for some mechs, but not what we have currently on some of the more crazy examples (WVR, DRG, HBK-GI, etc). Those particular mechs should have the weapon quirk decreased, and other quirks added.

Quote

For example a mech like the Jager could have a ballistic bonus of 10%, or a ballistic of 5% with an AC5/AC2 5%. In any combination of range, velocity, cycle time, heat If the player wants a bigger bonus then they could put on a module for the AC5.

Ignore modules completely. They serve no place in these discussions, as they can be put equally in anything. The only time modules become relevant here is if a combination of quirks+modules would make something break the game (>100% cooldown time or more than 100% heat reduction for example).

Quote

PGI has not mentioned their ideas for revamping the pilot skill tree. They really need to keep in mind how quirks, modules, and pilot skills work together.

I certainly hope they do. It's pretty obvious, though, this at least isn't complicated.

Edited by Wintersdark, 22 April 2015 - 09:42 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Winterdark, I actually mentioned multiple times that asymmetrical balance is what MWO has going, same as BTech did before the Clan Invasion removed the asymmetry and made it Clan or nothing, which they then mucked up even worse with the Jihad and Dark Ages powercreep explosions.

Fup was putting forth that unless a Mech is as good as another in some fashion, there's no reason to add it. That's not how PGI is doing things however, and Russ's statement about not all Mechs being viable for competition is a clear indication that they will be adding Mechs simply because they exist, regardless of them being viable in terms of competition. And outside of the top comp players, the playerbase doesn't actually care about how viable for competition a Mech is. They look at the name or the actual model or they remember using them in BTech or another of the MW titles and that's all they care about. How well it performs really isn't a big deal for the average player because to them it's not about having the best Mech, it's about having the Mech they like.

And as for the Tier system, for starters, I think it's bs, as we all know that some of the tier rankings are not actually good representations of the Mech, and that was prior to quirks coming into play and the various weapon changes and JJ changes which have moved some tiers 1 to tier 5, but the tier system hasn't been updated. It's a subjective ranking system, and it's one based on how well SOME people can use each of the Mechs, it's not based on how well that Mech could perform under the perfection conditions, and that is a huge difference. The tiers should be based on the actual top possible performance of the Mech under perfect conditions, human skill should have no influence upon that ranking at all. That way the tiers are actually based on the hardware alone because THAT is the only thing that can be accurately rated.

As for quirks, again, I'm not against them, I'm against the stupid weapon quirks that have been used, especially when they have no lore/fluff reason to exist. Movement, agility, armor, structure, sensors, heat, these are the quirks that should be used first and foremost, and the lore/fluff is full of information to build upon for those. Weapon quirks should only happen when the lore/fluff actually gives them, and sometimes those will be negative quirks because some Mechs are well known for their weapons issues, be it jamming, a bad model of weapon that was put on the Mech, etc. There should definitely NOT be weapon quirks that give IS LL the ability to out range and out DPS Clan ERLL, especially on a Mech KNOWN for it's mixed loadouts like the Stalker.

[Lily from animove]

people still argue with kristovs weird illogicality?

[Kristov Kerensky]

Lily from animove, on 23 April 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

people still argue with kristovs weird illogicality?

You have something to add to the discussion or are you just making a personal attack?