282 replies to this topic

[Kilo 40]

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

making the game unrecognizable as "A Battletech Game".

hyperbolic comments like this do not strengthen your argument, they only weaken it.

[Bloody]

Agreed with OP, Quirks are band aid fixes to an underlying issue. Yes you can use a band aid for minor issues but to define mech chassis because of their quirks is an incredibly lazy idea which smacks of incompetence and failure to address the underlying issue.

Sticking fingers into a dam might work if you have 1 small leak but the current Quirk system tells me that the dam is badly built and stupidly designed.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

Quirks are not a worsening problem. They were simply ridiculous from the get-go. The game jumped the shark for me when I saw a grid iron firing gauss rifle rounds faster than an Ac/5.

[Peter2k]

Agree with Bishop

And it seems quirks are hard to manage for PGI for the number of mechs we have; more mechs to come, quite a lot more I'm sure

Maybe remove all weapon (and armor/structure) quirks
Work through more general ones like heat dissipation, n movement n so on

If devs/players think TTK is too low (well I think so) maybe triple armor in the test server and see how it plays out

[kapusta11]

Where have you been? Power sprint started when the game that was balanced for 2 years around the fact that 35 FLD damage is too much met 48+ laser alpha on anything starting from medium mech with clan tech release. Quirks are just there to help people in denial.

Edited by kapusta11, 21 April 2015 - 12:53 AM.

[MikeBend]

Serpieri, on 20 April 2015 - 10:39 PM, said:

I'm sure PGI will introduce a new mechanic called traits to balance the quirks.

That also opens great possibilities, cause we can then have perks, to balance traits, that balance quirks! And then, introduce tweaks, to balance perks! FGB! (For Greater Balance! or actually - ******* the Game real Bad)

[TheArisen]

Xetelian, on 20 April 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

Disagree.

Would anyone play a Dragon 1N if it didn't have quirks? No.

That's kind of what Bishop is saying. PGI used quirks as a bandaid for bad mechs instead of fixing the original problem. Some of the strongest mechs right now are only that way due to quirks. In a few cases they've passed up the previously T1 mechs.

[XtremWarrior]

I like quircks.
It gives reason to try some weapons setup that i wouldn't never have tried otherwise.
It helps a reasonable number of variants that we almost never saw on the field before.
If you don't want to only play by them, you can and the usual double layer (ie- weapon type buff + specific weapon buff) let you toy with multiple working loadouts.

Ok, some values are a bit too high and some Mechs became monsters (the now nerfed TDR-9S or the still crazy-srm4 Huginn) but in general, i like how it makes some mechs feel usefull and competitive (the 1 LargeLaser Locust was very boring to play without quircks imo).

Even some real high value quircks are good, like the 40% PPC projectiles speed on the Panther, which would be a true under-performer without it.
And I like the diparities in the quircks values, as it breaks the monotony: i would hate to see the same +10 to +20% buffs on every Mechs.

Maybe some normalization across the board could help, to make the chassis look more equals on paper, but i don't think that a total reboot is needed nor that quircks are totaly off the grid right now.

TheArisen, on 21 April 2015 - 01:00 AM, said:

That's kind of what Bishop is saying. PGI used quirks as a bandaid for bad mechs instead of fixing the original problem. Some of the strongest mechs right now are only that way due to quirks. In a few cases they've passed up the previously T1 mechs.

Except Mechs are not equals from the get-go, as BT uses different systems to balance Mechs than their simple effectiveness on the field. So how do you balance a Locust and a Firestarter? Or maybe you don't and just say, too bad for the pilot, he should have known before bringing his useless pile of junk in a match?
It's still a shooter game, that most people play to fight with Robots, so Mechs have to be relatively on par with each others, as far as the shooting goes. Quircks work fine for that.

Edited by XtremWarrior, 21 April 2015 - 01:49 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I still think quirks are an important part of a multiplayer game like this. Not all mechs are created equal and bringing them closer together in performance for their class is good gameplay even if it can require some radical quirks.

People say quirks is a bandaid for poor weapon balance, but balanced weapons still has nothing to do with hard points on a mech. Some mechs just have better hardpoubt locations or more hard points than others. We saw that without quirks, people would still funnel to a hand full of builds because of high mount weapons or a lot of hard points. Weapon balance wouldn't prevent a mech with good high hard points from being used.

We could say structure quirks get out of hand, but the mechs used in MWO were drawings for tabletop. The Nova is HUGE, period. That is how the Nova was designed and drawn. PGI could have manipulated its dimensions, but after that, does it resemble a Nova? When we use these BT designs, obvious downsides in hitboxes show up. If these mechs were very powerful, but vulnerable, then maybe they would balance out. Most mechd just have bad hitboxes and dubpar performance to boot making them lose lose.

If this was MechWarrior 5 (a single player game) instead of MechWarrior Online, then it would make a lot less of a difference. You could forget about quirks. You could structure the game so that power creep mechs were available later in the game. You could program AI to shoot differently at mechs with obvious design flaws. You could work around the deficiency in mech designs.

This isn't MechWarrior 5 and this isn't a single player game. This is multiplayer, with "smart" human opponents who will exploit obvious deficiencies. These need to be balanced to keep variety on the battlefield.

Now can we debate the details of what mech gets what quirks, sure. But, the fact that quirks exist should be looked at (at the least) as a necessary compromise.

Just my 2 cents.

[Lily from animove]

Spiders are a prime example when a mech needs heavy % quirks, because compared to a fully quirked FS9? LOL, how should it ever compete with them.

Some mechs need it that high, others not.

Then you have the "benchmark" when this is SCR and TBR level, no wonder you get powercreep instead of toning down some and buffing others.

And then the third chosen quirks. NVA arms got heavily buffed, while thr ST buff was so lousy, WoW. At this point those armbuff was bad. Would the NVA be a CN9 like shape, it would be very helpful, because twisting and all it's possibilities to block ST and CT hitboxes with an arm. But on the Nova? No sense to buff arms when every section is hitable form ANY angle.
Treatment needs to differ more to what mech needs. Powercreep like this happens when you buff wrong things, and NVA still dies quickly. Becaue the buff was done at the not needed parts of a mech.

and my personal dealbreaker with the quirkening atm is Omnimech CT quirks. That is entirely destroying the Omnimech idea. Because suddenly equally equipped mechs with the same shape, same hardppoints and same hardpointlocations have different performance. And naturally one is better than the other, making the othes juts a inferior choice.

Edited by Lily from animove, 21 April 2015 - 03:14 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

Oh and this

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.

But this is exactly what the unwashed masses want. They don't want to try to win. they want it handed to them.My Locust should be able to beat any and every Mech in the game! Forget the fact that it is the smallest, least armored and armed Mech in the game.I should be equal to a Timber Wolf or Dire Wolf.

My skill? Are you kidding?? I'M THE BEST MECHWARRIOR EVER! NOBODY CAN DEFEAT ME!!!

Then why do you want the Locust Quirked?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 April 2015 - 03:37 AM.

[Tapdancing Kerensky]

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?

[Joseph Mallan]

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?

I compete by changing my tactics till I find one that works. Right now Its me brawling in an Atlas,

[Torric]

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

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?

Quirks above a combined 25% for anything are just insane and should never have been allowed in the first place. I do think some mechs need quirks, because there are chassis' and/or variants out there that are just plain and utter crap with their hardpoints and current weapon stats. Like the mentioned Locust*.

Then again, that could be adressed by simply adjusting the hardpoints... which probably would lead to the arbitrary "3chassis variants to master" idea to collapse on itself, and you cannot expect the devs to go that route.


*I mean, Locusts in general are not meant to really fight other mechs, they are mostly anti-infantry mechs, but they are being tossed in an all-mech environment here, so... Anyway, the Locust in question has a single energy hardpoint, so even with 50% quirks it is not even remotely anywhere viable here.

[Lily from animove]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

Then why do you want the Locust Quirked?

because there is no benefit to take an inferior mech to battle. and if you want the game to be played by more than 5 chassis, and sustain a large palyerbase of MW and BT fans playing the chassis they like instead of the only viables, you will have to create at least somehwat balanced working mechs.

Bad mechs existed in BT, because one commander, many mechs, and a BV deciding their prices.
Now its one commander, one mech. You can not bring 3 bad ones to beat a good one in a then fair fight. You are just one commander and one mech. Choose a bad one and gimp yourself, or choose a good one and have it easier.

Edited by Lily from animove, 21 April 2015 - 04:24 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Stefka Kerensky, on 20 April 2015 - 11:23 PM, said:

And why, in your opinion.
I don't like Dragon for its creapy CT hitbox, for instance.
So, logic would suggest to fix....hitboxes.

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.

[Widowmaker1981]

TheArisen, on 21 April 2015 - 01:00 AM, said:

That's kind of what Bishop is saying. PGI used quirks as a bandaid for bad mechs instead of fixing the original problem. Some of the strongest mechs right now are only that way due to quirks. In a few cases they've passed up the previously T1 mechs.

"fixing the original problem" for the Dragon, as an example, requires completely redesigning the mech such that it isnt a giant walking CT nose thing. I.e. making it not actually be a Dragon at all.

PGI are constrained to creating mechs based on existing artwork with existing weapon placements. These things had no influence on TT balance at all so they are completely all over the place - thus quirks are required to allow mechs, like the Dragon, which lose this lottery to not just be useless placeholders in your mechlab. They arent perfectly done, but are on the right track imo.

[XtremWarrior]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 April 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

But this is exactly what the unwashed masses want. They don't want to try to win. they want it handed to them.My Locust should be able to beat any and every Mech in the game! Forget the fact that it is the smallest, least armored and armed Mech in the game.I should be equal to a Timber Wolf or Dire Wolf.

My skill? Are you kidding?? I'M THE BEST MECHWARRIOR EVER! NOBODY CAN DEFEAT ME!!!

Then why do you want the Locust Quirked?

And in what crowd are you that is so much better than the "unwashed mass"?
Looking at your statement, i'm in this plebeian population, yet all i want is a Mech game in which i can pick any Mech i own and press play, not having to think if i am gonna be a liability to my team (not looking at skill maters because i think i'm just an average player so anyone is as good as i am).

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?

Yes, playing a unquirked Locust can be fun but in the end, if your an average player and pick a loosy Mech, you'll get matched against an also average player in a better Mech and lose. This is a very big issue for me, and i think for a lot of players too.
We can't all be as greatly skilled as you are, so we need balanced Mechs to keep up with our foes.

Quirks help a lot to achieve this balance, and sometime they have to get a little over the roof to help a really poor Mech.

EDIT: i'm not saying Quirks are perfect right now, just that they're not nearly as bad as Bishop make them look in this thread.

Edited by XtremWarrior, 21 April 2015 - 04:35 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Lily from animove, on 21 April 2015 - 04:11 AM, said:

because there is no benefit to take an inferior mech to battle. and if you want the game to be played by more than 5 chassis, and sustain a large palyerbase of MW and BT fans playing the chassis they like instead of the only viables, you will have to create at leats somehwat balanced working mechs.

Bad mechs existed in BT, because one commander, many mechs, and a BV deciding their prices.
Now its one commander, one mech. You can not bring 3 bad ones to beat a good one in a then fair fight. You are just one commander and one mech. Choose a bad one and gimp yourself, or choose a good one and have it easier.

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.

[Sjorpha]

I agree that many quirks are too extreme, to the point of feeling silly and defining entire mechs in the metagame.

And at the same time those extreme quirks aren't enough to close the performance gap between is and clan, except maybe 1 or 2 cases.

It's quite clear that the clan tech imbalance has forced the implementation of extreme quirks, but also that this approach of balancing factions don't work.

My solution would be to Remove all quirks, balance clan and is tech to be equally good in themselves, and then when there are too tier mechs on both sides gently quirk the bad mechs on both sides.

The problem is that there is some kind of weird religiosity around the superiority of clan tech, that needs to go.