282 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

XtremWarrior, on 21 April 2015 - 04:23 AM, said:

And in what crowd are you that is so better than the "unwashed mass"?

I bathe twice a week. So I'm Not unwashed.

Quote

Do you know some succesfull (in the long run) games with a character selection (be it Hero/Ship/Mech or anything) holding the same discrepencies in effectiveness on the field as BT do?

I don't know a game that has as large a selection as CBT. There is a 208 page PDF with all the units available to a CBT player. Do you think they are all Effective?

[STEF_]

Wintersdark, on 21 April 2015 - 04:21 AM, said:

There's nothing wrong with the Dragon's hitboxes, the problem is its geometry. Its not really possible to fix that without a whole new model.

That's right.
But being problematic to design a new model, it's a good solution to add armour point to CT.

Instead pgi decided to add crazy ac5 quirk, that nothing has to do with dragon's issues.

[Wintersdark]

DancingShade, on 21 April 2015 - 03:58 AM, said:

Quirks are how IS compete with clans, or something I guess.

Balance is subjective anyway - are you worried about best mech for soloing, team stuff, CW or what?

Its not, really. There are always going to be differences in which mech is best for a given role, but there will always be good and poor mechs.

[Lily from animove]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2015 - 04:25 AM, said:

I have played this game in Mechs most would say are "inferior". I get good results. I have seen players using craptastic Mechs and Owning the match.

I'm a firm believer that the weapon is only as good as the wielder. So what you are saying is we have a lot of players unwilling to admit they are not good players.

of course a good weapon with a bad wielder stays bad. And of course a bad wepaon used properly will beat a good wepaon used poorly. But in the end, there are easy to use, easy to succeed weapons. there are also hard to use and hard to succeed weapons. And a proper user that will be matched to others with elo, will suddenly have a lot equally good wepaon users with and against himself. and at this point, the weapon will decide the outcome, not the user. And this is why many mechs are dead. Because in such environment nearly no one is choosing the bad weapon.

you will never ever make Spider 5V perform as good as FS9 -any, because that mech is plain inferior to the FS9's. and if you can beat FS9's that is only happening because of facing FS9 pilots being not able to use their weapon properly.


So yes, there is a load of players not beign good, mostly because they put not the time and dedication into the game as some of us.

I am not complaining because i cna not lift that 100kg arrle of bear while the muscle man that does this daily can.
But it is a no brainer to know that he will be able to lift 50kg one much easier than the 100kg one. And in a contest between 2 equally skilled musclemans ligting these barrels, the one havign to lift 50kg will be on a far superior advantage to the 100kg lifting one.

yes suddenly every muscle man could do the contest only with that 50kg barrel, but suddenly this would turn out very boring and is of course not really reflecting a game.
A gamne is for fun and enjoyment. Yet also for competition. But all thes epeople will get thrown together randomly. And withoutsetting a base balance on mechlevel. Everythign past the MM will tiher unify and be boring (fun gone --> players gone) or horibly unbalanced, (also fun gone --> players gone).

if we had a TF2 like game, wiht dedicated servers where poeple runnign the servers define rules, well then we may had a better segreggation between, fungames, newbies and competitive players.But we don't. So ontop of that playstyle imbalance we also have mechimbalance. That makes it quite difficult to cater a large mass of players with fun.

[LordBraxton]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 April 2015 - 10:15 PM, said:

snip snip

I finally agree with bishop 100% !!!!

You must not be not white knighting hard enough anymore!!

Noreally, PGI should go back and rescale and fix all the old IS chassis. I think one old chassis deserves a redo for each new mech they milk us with.

[Reitrix]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 April 2015 - 10:15 PM, said:

Look. I've been concerned that Quirks were being overdone for a while. Being used as stopgaps and bandaids for deeper issues. If the Thud was so bad it needed 50% cooling on ERPPCs to "compete" (it didn't), then it bespeaks of much larger underlying issues.

Yet more and more, Mechs aren't being "helped" by Quirks, but defined by them. and it's not "1 quirk per tier" anymore, but crazy stuff like the Zeus's armor....or literally doubling the armor on the arms of the Nova-C. (The Locust and Mist Lynx are pretty crazy too, IMO, in those regards)

At no point should a mech need a 40-50% boost to ANYTHING to make it "viable". The LB-X on the CN9-D sort of does, one could say...but does it? Or does the LB-X need to simply not SUCK as a weapon? Does the LCT-1V really need that kind of cooldown on it's ERLL? Or the DRG-1N?

Or are they lazy bandages covering over bigger problems, like poorly implemented and balanced weapons, and chassis that are poorly thought out, balanced and victims of atrocious scaling issues?

And this isn't because the Clan Mechs are finally getting decent Quirks in some instances. In the current environment, they NEED them, in most cases not named StormCrow or TimberWolf. And most still need MORE, in the current environment.

But what we got is a Quirks Arms Race going on, where they are not only being used as cure alls, for whatever ails a design, but are starting to define the Metas in and of themselves. Quirks were supposed to be a "boost" to give underperformers a shot. 10% here, 20, even 25% on the truly bad mechs, here and there, I could see and agree with.

But it's really gone too far. Quirks are going form a potential saviour of underperforming mechs to making the game unrecognizable as "A Battletech Game".

I think it's really time to stop and really look at just how nuts the quickening has gotten. And to start over with them yet again. And maybe, it's time to hold a little more Dev accountability to actually provide minimally viable products on the in game models and weapons balance.

I still enjoy this game, but with each new list of quirks released, I recognize the game less and less. Truth be told, I am actually almost missing the "Time Before Quirks", even though many of my favorite chassis were all but DoA then.

I still firmly believe that cutting the heat cap to 30 plus 1 for each SHS and let DHS be double dissipation (but not increase heatcap) would go a long way to pulling us back from this power creep we're seeing.

Get rid of weapon specific quirks and leave Armor/Structure quirks in on 'Mechs like the Hunchback and the Awesome whose original art gave them bad hitboxes.

In general, having a much lower heat cap would push builds towards sustained fire rather than huge alphas.

The sheer volume of weapons being fired at once is the source of the problem.
Take away the ability to plant 60+ damage in one shot and we remove the need for the more crazy defensive Quirks we're seeing.

Such a change would bring the Atlas back as well. Being unable to boat will not be such a crippling disadvantage in a world where your Atlas can adequately guard its Ac20 because it would require more than 1 'Mech to rip off its Ac20.

Cheese builds like the 6x UAC5 would overheat on the second shot.

Maybe we could even finally add in heat penalties when approaching the heat cap.
Not crippling penalties, but penalties that prod people towards efficient builds as opposed to the current trend of Engine + Minimum Heatsinks + as many guns as your tonnage/Hardpoints can fit.

Reducing the number of guns on the field will improve the survivability of many smaller 'Mechs and those with larger hitboxes.

Also, with smaller damage coming out at a time, spread damage weapons like the LB aren't so worthless, due to its ability to instantly damage multiple components, even when the target is actively twisting to hide vulnerable parts.

[Gyrok]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 April 2015 - 10:25 PM, said:

Know what else packs 64 armor in it's arms...or 40 Structure in it's Legs? A bloody Banshee. A 50 ton mech (Nova) has structure or armor matching a 95 ton Assault mech. Heck it has the CT and ST structure of a 70 tonner. And then weapon quirks on top.

The 80 ton Zeus has the same armor as the 100 ton DW in the STs.

As for quirks...honestly...there is some tuning that should be done...however, nothing is ridiculous right now.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lily from animove, on 21 April 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

of course a good weapon with a bad wielder stays bad. And of course a bad wepaon used properly will beat a good wepaon used poorly. But in the end, there are easy to use, easy to succeed weapons. there are also hard to use and hard to succeed weapons. And a proper user that will be matched to others with elo, will suddenly have a lot equally good wepaon users with and against himself. and at this point, the weapon will decide the outcome, not the user. And this is why many mechs are dead. Because in such environment nearly no one is choosing the bad weapon.

you will never ever make Spider 5V perform as good as FS9 -any, because that mech is plain inferior to the FS9's. and if you can beat FS9's that is only happening because of facing FS9 pilots being not able to use their weapon properly.


So yes, there is a load of players not beign good, mostly because they put not the time and dedication into the game as some of us.

I am not complaining because i cna not lift that 100kg arrle of bear while the muscle man that does this daily can.
But it is a no brainer to know that he will be able to lift 50kg one much easier than the 100kg one. And in a contest between 2 equally skilled musclemans ligting these barrels, the one havign to lift 50kg will be on a far superior advantage to the 100kg lifting one.

yes suddenly every muscle man could do the contest only with that 50kg barrel, but suddenly this would turn out very boring and is of course not really reflecting a game.
A gamne is for fun and enjoyment. Yet also for competition. But all thes epeople will get thrown together randomly. And withoutsetting a base balance on mechlevel. Everythign past the MM will tiher unify and be boring (fun gone --> players gone) or horibly unbalanced, (also fun gone --> players gone).

if we had a TF2 like game, wiht dedicated servers where poeple runnign the servers define rules, well then we may had a better segreggation between, fungames, newbies and competitive players.But we don't. So ontop of that playstyle imbalance we also have mechimbalance. That makes it quite difficult to cater a large mass of players with fun.

If I have a positive W/L KDr in the Spider does it need to be "As good" as the Firestarter?

[N a p e s]

Though I agree that some quirks are out of hand and what we need is a proper balancing of weapons I do see one issue.

Take for example the ever raging fight between the IS large laser and the IS PPC. Whenever one of these weapons takes the edge over the other the inferior one completely disappears from the meta until a balance swings it back to the other weapon. So in that sense it seems like quirks are doing their job, we have plenty of large lasers going around these days but if the quirks on a particular mech are interesting for using PPCs those usually get equipped.

Could the balance be closer between the 2 and consequently the quirks reduced? Most definitely but it may be tricky since that balance rests on a fine edge! My point is that quirks have helped diversify what you see in terms of fielded weapons and I'd like that to stay.

Now for the armor/structure (A/S) buffs. There has to be an agreement of a baseline for how tanky a mech of a given tonnage should feel. And this I think is where feeling it out is extra important because there are many factors that influence this. Take the Awesome for example, the mech that is reputed to be a tough as nails, lead the charge kinda of mech in BT. And what do we get, a barndoor that folds like wet paper. Well in this case I'm all for big A/S buffs that make the mech FEEL like it should. This doesn't mean that it can waddle out in the middle of an enemy pack and walk away fully operational, but it should be able to take some decent hits.

Maybe this goes deeper than just quirks though... should a Victor that comes stock with 368 armor points ever be able to be tougher than an Awesome that comes stock with 480 armor points? Koniving had an interesting about this where not all same tonnage mechs should be allowed to equip the same amount total armor and instead there should be an extra armor tonnage allotment of 3 tons (if I remember correctly).

So how do we go about fixing all this? Honestly at this point it feels like a massive amount of time would be needed to completely redo certain aspects of the game. The heat system which has been talked about in the past would be great to try out, but it could lead to needing to re-balance all of the weapons. Unfortunately that's a lot to think about and for some reason I don't see this as a priority for PGI.

[Mar-X-maN]

I just build myself an ER-PPC Orion thats working nicely. My first build out of 58 or so to ever use PPC. It also fits perfectly in my ECM CW drop deck.

I was looking to build a specific ER-PPC build and the Orion fit the requirements perfectly. Also its the first time I took quirks into consideration, but hardpoints mattered still.

On a sidenote, right now I believe the Orion is one of the best beginners mechs. My impression is that its rather cost effecitve to upgrade.

Oh and by the way thanks to all the meta exploiters for making all my favourite weapons obsolete.
RIP LRM, Gauss, UAC, sad to see the lasers dying soon.

I hope I haven't stumbled across a meta build here, or it will be useless after the exploit is fixed. But there is a chance it will not become meta, as meta is a synonym for BOAT IMO.

Here is an idea: Make all flavour of the month meta builds as trial mechs. That should fix the problem.

Edited by Mar X maN, 21 April 2015 - 06:12 AM.

[Dracol]

Bishop, IMHO, the massive armor/internal buffs some mechs are recieving help overcome some of the issues that translating cool looking table top miniatures into FPV game models has caused.

Take the Awesome for example. Great looking TT mini/TRO imagery. But, put that thing in front of an actual set of cross hairs, and anyone who can hit the side of a barn can hit it.

Resizing the mech would loose the proportions and draw it away from the original artwork. So, instead, it got moth balled in most mech garages until the quirks came out. Now, that giant barn door facade can withstand the extra incoming fire that it draws in.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dracol, on 21 April 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

Bishop, IMHO, the massive armor/internal buffs some mechs are recieving help overcome some of the issues that translating cool looking table top miniatures into FPV game models has caused.

Take the Awesome for example. Great looking TT mini/TRO imagery. But, put that thing in front of an actual set of cross hairs, and anyone who can hit the side of a barn can hit it.

Resizing the mech would loose the proportions and draw it away from the original artwork. So, instead, it got moth balled in most mech garages until the quirks came out. Now, that giant barn door facade can withstand the extra incoming fire that it draws in.

This I can agree with. But did, for instance, the DRG need to have it's CT buffed (yes, yes it did) and then a chaingun meets ripsaw on crack ******* AC5 quirk, too? Does the Gridiron need to ballistic almost as well as any other HBK with any Ballistic ...AND have a machine gun Gauss?

The point is the amount of "quirk everything" going on. Some need a minor quirk or two. Others need more. But many mechs are getting too high of percentages, and too many total quirks, and the response seems to be, add even more quirks to the next batch of mechs.

It's called snowballing. And not the kind most off the filthy minded here are instantly thinking about.

[CygnusX7]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 April 2015 - 10:25 PM, said:

Know what else packs 64 armor in it's arms...or 40 Structure in it's Legs? A bloody Banshee. A 50 ton mech (Nova) has structure or armor matching a 95 ton Assault mech. Heck it has the CT and ST structure of a 70 tonner. And then weapon quirks on top.

Deeper issues with armor and TTK(?).

[Dracol]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

This I can agree with. But did, for instance, the DRG need to have it's CT buffed (yes, yes it did) and then a chaingun meets ripsaw on crack ******* AC5 quirk, too? Does the Gridiron need to ballistic almost as well as any other HBK with any Ballistic ...AND have a machine gun Gauss?

The point is the amount of "quirk everything" going on. Some need a minor quirk or two. Others need more. But many mechs are getting too high of percentages, and too many total quirks, and the response seems to be, add even more quirks to the next batch of mechs.

It's called snowballing. And not the kind most off the filthy minded here are instantly thinking about.

The weapon buffs have encouraged people to use those mechs more often. Are they to much? Maybe, maybe not...
If they were lessoned, would we see such diversity?

As for snowballing, PGI in the past has pulled back on quirks that have gone to far. And MWO does have some really under performing mechs that have needed big buffs to be seen as an alternative to more popular mechs. With the vocalness of our community, anything that goes to far has a good chance of being reined in.

[LORD ORION]

Stock builds should be quirked so the mechs work as designed.

[Shae Starfyre]

I wonder if there would be this much talk about quirks if they were part of different weapon's sub-systems or armor types available to various Houses.

The panther could have access to a weapon design of a PPC that provides faster projectile speed but is incompatible with other mech's systems, or a certain Mechs structure is based out of such and such factory and is designed/made out of such and such polymer.

Quirks, to me, are just a representation of esoteric game reality and function.... why does it really matter so much?

This could have been introduced, ghost heat too, from an angle where everyone nods the head and says, that makes sense.

Instead, PGI showed their hand, and didn't hide any of the information from us... it's all right there, now, you can either cry about, use your imagination and make up reasons for it, or objectively evaluate and provide feedback to PGI.

Edited by Aphoticus, 21 April 2015 - 05:53 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

CygnusX7, on 21 April 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

Deeper issues with armor and TTK(?).

Way deeper issues. I sure don't want to see "across the board" triple and doubled armor, but we are seeming to be getting it through Quirks, piecemeal.

One of the issues pre quirks? A single Gauss or AC20 just wasn't scary. You had to respect it, but thanks to doubled armor, you no longer had the "OH CRAP" factor. Focus fire (made MUCH worse with 12v12), pinpoint accuracy and double to tripled RoF made TTK too low. SO armor was doubled. Sadly it also seriously negated the effectiveness and even the identity of a lot of weapons and mechs.

I Battletech, even an Assault had to respect (and in some cases, fear) a Hunchback, because of that AC20. Before the quickening, you really didn't, unless you were already cored. Now we got locusts that won't even lose an arm if hit by an AC20 in them..... (AND HECK, WHO PACKS AN AC20 OR AC10 OR ppc IN a MECH ANYMORE UNLESS IT HAS RIDICULOUS LEVELS OF QUIRKS FOR IT? Stupid capslocks...... )
Viability for all mechs. Great, but all mechs shouldn't be able to tank and shrug off hits from the biggest weapons. That's what speed and cover is supposed to be fore on them. But because of FPS for Dummies easy perfect aim, we can't have that. Because of perfectly converging 9 plus weapon mechs, we can't have that. Because they never balanced the Lvl 1 tech weapons first, to give us a baseline, everything is in a constant state of flux, meaning that we have yoyo quirks causing new metas....and sometimes mechs are weapons are "becoming" OP, when the issue is neither, but the bloody quirks.

We are piling bandaid on top of bandaid here. But bandaids not only won't stop internal bleeding, but you bury the patient under enough of them, you might just smother him.

The point many seem to be missing, is I am not calling for the removal of quirks. I'm Pointing out how inconsistently, and over the top the actual implementation of them has often become. With new "metas" (in the incorrect gamer use of the term) rising and falling based on which mech has what quirks. Quirks are to make mechs viable, but should never be strong enough to be the basis for metas. The point was to bring mechs up to or near to the top of the class...often times the quirks have pushed mechs beyond it.

That's just broken, and bad for the game. Period.

[Joseph Mallan]

LORD ORION, on 21 April 2015 - 05:47 AM, said:

Stock builds should be quirked so the mechs work as designed.

They do work as designed. Players just don't like the way they work.

My Atlas-D worked great Stock. Against other Stock designs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Aphoticus, on 21 April 2015 - 05:50 AM, said:

I wonder if there would be this much talk about quirks if they were part of different weapon's sub-systems or armor types available to various Houses.

The panther could have access to a weapon design of a PPC that provides faster projectile speed but is incompatible with other mech's systems, or a certain Mechs structure is based out of such and such factory and is designed/made out of such and such polymer.

Quirks, to me, are just a representation of esoteric game reality and function.... why does it really matter so much?

When it starts making the game more about the quirks then the mech, you start seeing even bigger balance issues, in a game famous for balance issues. That kind of matters.

[Shae Starfyre]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

When it starts making the game more about the quirks then the mech, you start seeing even bigger balance issues, in a game famous for balance issues. That kind of matters.

The only balance issue I ever run into is two against one or 5 against one.

Not sure how everyone is objectively figuring out balance issues.