282 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2015 - 05:06 AM, said:

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

it DOES NOT NEED, but your FS9 should be equally or better, otherwise you are not using the better tool right.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lily from animove, on 21 April 2015 - 06:01 AM, said:

it DOES NOT NEED, but your FS9 should be equally or better, otherwise you are not using the better tool right.

Joe is many things, including a good guy. But even I think he can admit, because of his bias of "wanting to always have to carry harder and face the impñlaccable foe", that when it comes to actually balancing a Game, it's not really his speciality. In fact I'd say he is dang near blind to it. His outlook would be great in a PvE game, or if we had other asymmetrical balancing options and tools, but we don't.

[Alistair Winter]

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

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.

Well said. Quirks were supposed to boost the underperformers, and it made them into monsters that dominate the meta.

I fear PGI has put so much time into the quirks that they're reluctant to revisit them. I think Russ is pretty pleased with where the meta is at, with a few minor exceptions, like Clan ACs.

[Program 024]

I've been thinking about quirks as well.

I think that quirks can be used right, but that weapon specific quirks are not the greatest solution to encourage use. If anything, in a game all about choice in loadout, it discourages experimentation. Why use any other ballistic than an AC1o in that Centurion? If you use anything else, you are not using the quirk system to its advantage. More examples are out there.

Why not be a bit more generic with the weapon quirks? Split it up into ballistics, missiles, and energy. Perhaps more experimentation can actually happen. 20% cooldown reduction on ballistics? MOAR AC2'S!!!!

[zeves]

Let me complete the circle here, Drop the quirks and go back to Battle values so you can focus on more important things like content.

[Coolant]

I would rather have the quirk system...re-invigorated the game for me more than once when the game was becoming stale. Hope it continues. But, we need new content, more game modes, maps, and also rework skill tree - that is big in my book

[Tom Sawyer]

Insert the generic Russ does not read the forums only his tweets.

Perhaps Tina reads these and some of the devs.

Sad times

[Bishop Steiner]

Program 024, on 21 April 2015 - 06:05 AM, said:

I've been thinking about quirks as well.

I think that quirks can be used right, but that weapon specific quirks are not the greatest solution to encourage use. If anything, in a game all about choice in loadout, it discourages experimentation. Why use any other ballistic than an AC1o in that Centurion? If you use anything else, you are not using the quirk system to its advantage. More examples are out there.

Why not be a bit more generic with the weapon quirks? Split it up into ballistics, missiles, and energy. Perhaps more experimentation can actually happen. 20% cooldown reduction on ballistics? MOAR AC2'S!!!!

I've long been a proponent of changing the quirks values to have the majority of a Weapon Quirk go to the Generic, or at least Family of Weapons, and then a smaller amount to the specific, stock weapon. I still think that weapon deserves some special focus, on underperformers because the mech was designed and engineered around it. So instead of a Mech having say a 15% Energy Cooldown plus a 15% PPC Cooldown, make it a 20% Energy Cooldown with a 10% PPC one.

But realistically, if mechs needs a 40% velocity boost to make the PPC useable, that means the PPC as a weapon probably needs a 20% velocity boost, so it's useful in more mechs, and then the specific mech might only need a 10-20% boost in quirks. Etc.

[LORD ORION]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

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

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

Yes, and then as you mod the stock design quirk levels go down.

Use that second weapon mount? Lose some of the internal / armor point quirks.
Upgrade to endo? Lose some of that torso manuverability quirk.

Etc...

[Bishop Steiner]

Tom Sawyer, on 21 April 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

Insert the generic Russ does not read the forums only his tweets.

Perhaps Tina reads these and some of the devs.

Sad times

Russ actually reads a lot more than you realize. As do the rest of the Devs. He doesn't always comment. Big difference. Also, trust me, his twitter has been hit.

Coolant, on 21 April 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

I would rather have the quirk system...re-invigorated the game for me more than once when the game was becoming stale. Hope it continues. But, we need new content, more game modes, maps, and also rework skill tree - that is big in my book

Never said remove the quirks. I said stop using them as a crutch and over quirking stuff. Pretty huge difference.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lily from animove, on 21 April 2015 - 06:01 AM, said:

it DOES NOT NEED, but your FS9 should be equally or better, otherwise you are not using the better tool right.

I don't know. I Suck in most Lights. But I am not bad in a Panther. I would use it against any Light, and I would blame the loss on myself not the Mech.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2015 - 06:04 AM, said:

Joe is many things, including a good guy. But even I think he can admit, because of his bias of "wanting to always have to carry harder and face the impñlaccable foe", that when it comes to actually balancing a Game, it's not really his speciality. In fact I'd say he is dang near blind to it. His outlook would be great in a PvE game, or if we had other asymmetrical balancing options and tools, but we don't.

Its not that I want to carry harder, I just think a lot of folks just want it "to" easy.

[Almond Brown]

Wintersdark, on 21 April 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

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.

Indeed. The only true solution to that issue, aka the Locust vs Spider vs Firestarter gap, give the Lighter Mechs 5-10-15 more tons.

Even a 5t difference in a Weight class makes things out of whack when you field them. Let's just pick 1-2 Chassis from each weight class and call it done. Make them all weigh the same in each class, then put the exact same weapons space and locations, then make all the weapons that can be fitted identical. Then it is all good.

The ArmChair Dev Group should get together and build their own game cause no matter what the current Dev does they aren't ever going to be happy and these threads will come and go like the seasons.

Every time I read someone type, "let's redesign the whole thing" it just shows how out of touch with reality that poster truly is. It is a sad testament really when the best one has to offer is to tear down the work of others with no true valuable input, other than, "I am right, so do it, or the text based bashing's" will continue.

Do everyone a favor please. Build the complete current set of MWO Light Class Mechs, from 20t to 35t, with Geometry, Pod space, Weapons and Slot Location, complete with Quirks such that "every one of them can be totally viable". Then we will discuss that solution on the Forums. Other wise the unwashed masses will stay unwashed under you finger nails.

Sound unreasonable? Well it was is being asked of the current Dev Team.

Edited by Almond Brown, 21 April 2015 - 06:24 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

LORD ORION, on 21 April 2015 - 06:12 AM, said:

Yes, and then as you mod the stock design quirk levels go down.

Use that second weapon mount? Lose some of the internal / armor point quirks.
Upgrade to endo? Lose some of that torso manuverability quirk.

Etc...

I have no need for the Structure and Armor buff PGI was bullied into, Maneuverability is only impaired by Hardened Armor. Quirks are placating the lazy players. I'm not lazy.

You'd have to quirk a Light Mech to insane levels for me to be good in one, and you don't see me asking for Buffs.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 April 2015 - 06:17 AM.

[That Dawg]

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

stuff

what he said ^

My story: I have NO knowledge of any tabletop game anything before I downloaded a free game more than two years ago..a free game that I've spent about 300 bucks on, LOL

What I DO know, is IS mechs were the first wave, then came clan and so on.

this 'quirked' mech game, to me, has become a game

not very immersive and has taken on a feel like a flight sim where you can chose any airplane from 1939 up to 1945.

Effectively the entirety of WWII from Germany and Japans' first intrusions using biplanes with cloth wings and crudely mounted machine guns to the end war where Jets and bombers could flier higher than man had EVER been before mounting weaponry NOT dreamed of only 5 years earlier!

OH, but we can't piss off the guys who love post WWI biplanes and open cockpit wood framed fighters...so...lets GIVE them a whole new physics, they can fly almost as fast as the jets...and lets give those crappy .30 cal MG"s twice the range and they run cooler, and dont jam.

sheesh..not enough, lets make the jets overheat like crazy and only carry half the ammo.

dang, now that jet crowd is pissed, lets give them...guns that only weigh HALF what the biplanes get

and so on and so on and so on...all the while the very gear we play the game on is running so poorly optimized you get to a) drop a grand on a new rig that may or may not be an improvement depending on what processor you buy or just plod along with low frames.

all the while a new Patch Looms....frankly I'm still trying to figure out WHY they killed the user interface 1.0 (old mech lab), why clan mechs aren't better than IS mechs, why smurf isn't a part of the game and theres a whole thread about running the hell out of the repair tool BEFORE the new patch lands. [/rant]

[Felbombling]

PGI is stuck in denial mode where they think they can balance a game with a Mech Lab that allows for engine placement to the .5 ton. They've taken the single most important decision when it came to Mech design in the TT game and made it a trivial afterthought in this game, yet still think they can work around it. The hard points do not grow with the extra tonnage provided, once a player gets an XL engine. That sometimes puts player into the position of boating, compounded by the quirk system. Don't get me started on ammo per ton, too, which promotes boating of weapons.

Inject some lore back into the game, for crying out loud. If you're going to have weapon quirks, at least tailor them to the stock load out of the Mech in question.

I'd be perfectly willing to sacrifice 80% of the engine choices I have now if it meant a better overall game. Why have sixty engines to choose from if three versions, standard and XL, were available instead? For example, the Orion could have the standard/XL 300, 335 or 375 as options. The Hunchback might have the standard/XL 200, 225 or 250 as options.

The players who love to tinker in the Mech Lab might ***** and moan, but they'll get over it. If anything they should embrace that change, because it would mean that Mech design would be harder, something I've seen touted as a reason to have a Mech Lab with great latitude in the first place.

Edited by StaggerCheck, 21 April 2015 - 06:41 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

. Quirks are placating the lazy players. I'm not lazy.

Not entirely true. There are instances, such as the Dragon or Awesome, where quirks come in to help fix where TT Design meets FPS reality. Those mechs, for instance simply have horrible Geometry, and went from being respectively amongst the toughest in their classes, to being glass eggs. Short of redesigning said mechs physically so they no longer even resemble the source material, that's a pretty inescapable issue. So using a quirk system to buff them up to be able to overcome their geometry actually makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Things like 50% extra range, 50% cooldown (pre modules even, which let's face it..the modules are a pretty crap idea, the way done, too) and 40-50% heat reduction make no sense at all. But instead of using Heat Reduction on PPCs to short circuit GH, IDK why they couldn't layer the GH parameters onto the chassis (aside from it being a fair chunk of time), and then be able to weak them, so that for instance, the AWS could fire 3 PPC/ER PPC without triggering GH.

Pre Quirks, all most people asked for was the AWS to be able to unleash it's famed and fearsome alpha. Without the quirk system, it wouldn't be enough t make it tier 1, but It would have made it a lot more popular.

It's almost like they are using the "nimble programming" model on things like balance decisions, where half the time the decisions are being made myopically on Group B, without even really looking Groups A or C, and the total picture.

[LORD ORION]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

I have no need for the Structure and Armor buff PGI was bullied into, Maneuverability is only impaired by Hardened Armor. Quirks are placating the lazy players. I'm not lazy.

You'd have to quirk a Light Mech to insane levels for me to be good in one, and you don't see me asking for Buffs.

That's great for you, but as always elite players have TERRIBLE design paradigms when it comes to accessability for the average player.

Heavily quirk the stock builds, and slowly take the quirks away as the mech gets modded.

There should be enough data now to do this in 3-4 iterations of quirks.

[Bishop Steiner]

StaggerCheck, on 21 April 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

PGI is stuck in denial mode where they think they can balance a game with a Mech Lab that allows for engine placement to the .5 ton. They've taken the single most important decision when it came to Mech design in the TT game and made it a trivial afterthought in this game, yet still think they can work around it.

I'd be perfectly willing to sacrifice 80% of the engine choices I have now if it meant a better overall game. Why have sixty engines to choose from if three versions, standard and XL, were available instead? The players who love to tinker in the Mech Lab might ***** and moan, but they'll get over it. If anything they should embrace that change, because it would mean that Mech design would be harder, something I've seen touted as a reason to have a Mech Lab with great latitude.

You know, never really looked too much into the Engine Customization side as one of the base balance issues, but .... you could be onto something. While the TT Engine ratings were upgrades were arbitrary and kind of silly, they were done for simplicity. And they did largely work. Shame that ship sailed way back in Pre-CB, along with sized hardpoints and other balance concepts. Like convergence, HEat Affects, locked structure, etc. Oh, and actually balancing the basic IS weapons and tech first, then locking it as a base line so that Star League and then Clan Tech wouldn't be the ridiculous balance yoyo they are today. And have been since Beta.

[Joseph Mallan]

LORD ORION, on 21 April 2015 - 06:35 AM, said:

That's great for you, but as always elite players have TERRIBLE design paradigms when it comes to accessability for the average player.

Heavily quirk the stock builds, and slowly take the quirks away as the mech gets modded.

There should be enough data now to do this in 3-4 iterations of quirks.

I am the average player.. actually slightly below average. No matter what someone will always beat someone else. We cannot all be the best, but we can always try our best and accept teh result.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

You know, never really looked too much into the Engine Customization side as one of the base balance issues, but .... you could be onto something. While the TT Engine ratings were upgrades were arbitrary and kind of silly, they were done for simplicity. And they did largely work. Shame that ship sailed way back in Pre-CB, along with sized hardpoints and other balance concepts. Like convergence, HEat Affects, locked structure, etc. Oh, and actually balancing the basic IS weapons and tech first, then locking it as a base line so that Star League and then Clan Tech wouldn't be the ridiculous balance yoyo they are today. And have been since Beta.

Doesn't this mean with out a reason? TT engine choices were designed to fit the hex movement system. A Mech could not have 4.5 walking points on a map.

[kapusta11]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 April 2015 - 05:52 AM, said:

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.

The meta was and still is clan laser vomit. Is there a mech/build/quirk that changed it?