52 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Appogee, on 14 June 2015 - 03:38 AM, said:

Whatever PGI said was the goal of Quirks when they were first introduced, it's clear what they actually are now...

They are:

• a means of ensuring we all need to buy and keep one of every variant, in order to keep up with the deliberate manipulation of the Meta.
  
• a substitution for weapon balance.

How many Thud 9S's and Thud Mastery Packs were sold during that brief period when it was the best ERPPC sniper in the game? How many Dragons have been sold once the 1N was uberquirked, and STK-4Ns?


When crap variants can become the best Mechs in the match, you need to be a Pokemaster to keep up with the meta.

I disagree with this. The fans asked PGI to buff the bad variants, because they were almost a pointless addition to the game. First, you were forced to grind bad mechs to master the good ones. Second, PGI's hardpoint inflation didn't make the mechs remotely equal. Mechs like the RVN-4X and AWS-8V may as well not exist. The intention was to create more variety, which was kind of a success in the public queue, although PGI fumbled it up by creating some Meta-Quirk monsters which seem to dominate CW and the group queue, and thus eliminated variety again.

It's not a fundamental flaw in the system, it's just that PGI doesn't know how to balance their game very well.

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 14 June 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

Quirks were a stupid idea from the day it was conceived.

They're just band-**** fixes, that don't do anything more than **** things up even more.

No, they really are not a bad idea.

Used as intended, to make minor corrections, they are an efficient way to help with fix problems that might not be fixable else ways, be it economically not feasible (like totally redesigning the DRG and AWS... which just would not make sense budgetwise) or because of Lore (lower hardpoints and number of hardpoints mech will always be inferior to one with more and higher ones) to Mechs that by FASA design have to have crap hitboxes.

It also is a good way to give MINOR flavor to some chassis.

The issue is that PGI in their usual subtle way have overquirked pretty much everything.

Kiiyor, on 14 June 2015 - 04:25 AM, said:

While it is a concern, I can see how the quirks would come about from a little science being applied to unreleased variants.

PGI would know the exact dimensions of each mech, the exact positions of all their weapon hardpoints, the size of their hitboxes, and their mobility and maneuverability. If they looked at released mechs with similar shapes, loadouts and weapon placement, they would probably have a good idea of the shortfalls of each chassis.

As far as the quirks spiraling out of control, I don't think it's all doom and gloom. Many mechs were absolute rubbish without them, and are now competitive.

Things are better with quirks now, IMHO.

The biggest issue for me, are those chassis that are so irredeemably poorly designed that no amount of quirks will save them. I imagine the Awesome and Victor are sitting in a corner, hugging their knees and remembering times of yore when they weren't outclassed by every other mech on the battlefield.

Give the VTR it's jump back.....because it's not a poorly designed mech....it's one unfairly neutered thanks to our lazy metatard playerbase, and PGIs poor ability to fix problems .

[Appogee]

Alistair Winter, on 14 June 2015 - 04:30 AM, said:

It's not a fundamental flaw in the system, it's just that PGI doesn't know how to balance their game very well.

I would argue that being unable to balance the game without quirks is the fundamental flaw in the system.

[CyclonerM]

michaelius, on 14 June 2015 - 02:48 AM, said:

what happened to we will do multiple more often smaller changes ?

Applied to Clan buffs

[oldradagast]

Appogee, on 14 June 2015 - 03:38 AM, said:

Whatever PGI said was the goal of Quirks when they were first introduced, it's clear what they actually are now...

They are:

• a means of ensuring we all need to buy and keep one of every variant, in order to keep up with the deliberate manipulation of the Meta.
  
• a substitution for weapon balance.

How many Thud 9S's and Thud Mastery Packs were sold during that brief period when it was the best ERPPC sniper in the game? How many Dragons have been sold once the 1N was uberquirked, and STK-4Ns?


When crap variants can become the best Mechs in the match, you need to be a Pokemaster to keep up with the meta.

This. This is what quirks are about - to ensure an ever-changing meta to keep the cash flowing. Buy a mech, especially a new one, rule with it, watch it get nerfed, and then buy another. And round and round we go.

[Weeny Machine]

El Bandito, on 14 June 2015 - 02:29 AM, said:

Just look at these Zeus-5S quirks. Mind you, Zeus 5S is already a decent mech in terms of firepower and size.
ACCELERATION RATE (LOW SPEED): 10.00 % ACCELERATION RATE (MED SPEED): 10.00 % ACCELERATION RATE (HIGH SPEED): 10.00 % DECELERATION RATE (LOW SPEED): 10.00 % DECELERATION RATE (MED SPEED): 10.00 % DECELERATION RATE (HIGH SPEED): 10.00 % TURN RATE (LOW SPEED): 10.00 % TURN RATE (MED SPEED): 10.00 % TURN RATE (HIGH SPEED): 10.00 % TORSO TURN RATE (YAW): 10.00 % ADDITIONAL ARMOR (CT): 20.00 ADDITIONAL ARMOR (RT): 13.00 ADDITIONAL ARMOR (LT): 13.00 ADDITIONAL ARMOR (RA): 10.00 ADDITIONAL ARMOR (LA): 10.00 ADDITIONAL ARMOR (RL): 13.00 ADDITIONAL ARMOR (LL): 13.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (CT): 10.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (RT): 7.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (LT): 7.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (LA): 5.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (RA): 5.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (RL): 7.00 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (LL): 7.00 MISSILE VELOCITY: 5.00 % LRM 5/10/15/20 SPREAD: -5.00 % BALLISTIC COOLDOWN: 5.00 % BALLISTIC VELOCITY: 5.00 % UAC/5 JAMCHANCE: -30.00 % ENERGY RANGE: 5.00 %

PGI became black and cool?

[Leiska]

Appogee, on 14 June 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

I would argue that being unable to balance the game without quirks is the fundamental flaw in the system.

That's an obviously impossible task considering these are FASA designs. Also, quirks add a lot of variety, which makes playing different variants of the same chassis actually feel different. It's a great system.

[PhoenixFire55]

What made you think quirks had any purpose other then to sell previousely useless mechs in the first place?

Balance? Pffft ...
If they wanted balance and diversity they wouldn't make exactly one Dragon viable with exactly one build, while all other Dragons and even all other builds on 1N are still nothing but a pile of crap.

Edited by PhoenixFire55, 14 June 2015 - 06:11 AM.

[Leiska]

PhoenixFire55, on 14 June 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

What made you think quirks had any purpose other then to sell previousely useless mechs in the first place?

Balance? Pffft ...
If they wanted balance and diversity they wouldn't make exactly one Dragon viable with exactly one build, while all other Dragons and even all other builds on 1N are still nothing but a pile of crap.

It's still better than no dragon being anywhere remotely viable.

[OznerpaG]

since MWO has many mechs with many more to come in the future, in order to implement quirks there needs to be a unified system so quirks are applied to each mech according to it's ability to contribute to a match

eg:
TDR-5SS - high weapon mounts mostly in the torso so it can peek from behind terrain and fire, and high engine cap (75kph+) for good mobility

CTF-4X - low weapons mounts located in wide-set arms so it has to fully expose itself to deliver fire, and low engine cap (less than 75kph, in this case 65kph) so low mobility


therefore, the TDR-5SS does not really need any quirks to be successful, CTF-4X needs a LOT of quirks to be even remotely useful

reality - TDR-5SS is way over quirked, CTF-4X has insignificant quirks



in conclusion, there is no system

Edited by JagdFlanker, 14 June 2015 - 06:35 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Leiska, on 14 June 2015 - 06:34 AM, said:

It's still better than no dragon being anywhere remotely viable.

LOL ... as if your precious quirks didn't make dozens more other mechs absolutely useless. But whatever, stick to whichever delusions you want.

[TexAce]

The purpose of quirks was ALWAYS another one. Making sure to not have to nerf the holy trinity because they knew all the Timby-buyers who dished out money would go beserk if they suddenly realize "oops, the mech was designed too good, we have to nerf it".

Instead they decided to buff everything else and then even more to not have to nerf the Timby.

Thats all there is.

[Burktross]

Alistair Winter, on 14 June 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

The reason the original purpose of quirks has been lost is because the Stormcrow, Timberwolf and Dire Wolf completely changed the scale. They raised the bar. Previously, it would have been enough to balance all Inner Sphere mechs around the previous Tier 1 IS mechs, such as the CTF-3D and Shadowhawk or whatever else. There would be a number of Tier 1 IS mechs and quirks would be applied only to the underperformers, like bringing the RVN-2X and RVN-4X in line with the RVN-3L, for example.

But because the Holy Trinity was so blatantly superior, quirks couldn't just be used to balance the Inner Sphere mechs internally. Quirks become the tool to balance IS and Clans, and now all the Tier 1 IS mechs are dominating the meta precisely because of their quirks. And it's probably too late to change right now, unless they completely revamp the game.

I think it's funny because the word 'quirks' implies minor, interesting characteristics. It doesn't quite convey the monumental impact quirks have on the game. And for the life of me, I can't understand why PGI decided it was time to stop adjusting the core statistics (e.g. torso twist, arm movement, engine cap) for mechs in this game, or why they have refused to touch the number of hardpoints - despite blatant hardpoint inflation - since 2012.

qft

[LordKnightFandragon]

CyclonerM, on 14 June 2015 - 05:19 AM, said:

Applied to Clan buffs

But when applying Clan nerfs, they went back the usual wild hard ass, maniacal swinging of that nerf bat and pummeled those SCR/TBR.

[FupDup]

Tincan Nightmare, on 14 June 2015 - 02:19 AM, said:

...
Another concern is how new mechs, such as the resistance mechs, got quirks when they were not yet even in the game, and their viability had yet to be determined. I really feel that the quirk system has started to run amok, especially as people now determine whether a mech is good or bad based solely on its quirks.
...

To be fair, this is how it used to be prior to quirks:

"This mech will be bad."
"This mech will be good."


Now it has changed to this:

"This mech will be bad without big quirks."
"This mech will be good."

[Pezzer]

FupDup, on 14 June 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

To be fair, this is how it used to be prior to quirks:

"This mech will be bad."
"This mech will be good."


Now it has changed to this:

"This mech will be bad without big quirks."
"This mech will be good."

This. This is incredibly important in the quirk argument.

Simply put, if you believe that quirks in MWO are a bad thing for the game, you are absolutely and empirically wrong. It can be proven with statistics shown before and after various mechs were quirked, but I doubt that PGI would be willing to show this sort of information. But I digress.
Before quirks, Dragons were a challenge Mech that you only played because you were bored. Now they're used in CW because they're actually worth using.

That being said, I do agree that overquirking has been a problem for some time now. some mechs have not been given quirks that they deserve while others such as the Firestarter have had non-Ember (non-Tier 1 meta) variants overquirked so that they would be played more and given the chance to do those same damage numbers. In reality, the ember was OP and by buffing the Firestarters PGI was just adding fuel to the fire (hurr hurr). Now, things have gotten out of hand for sure. With certain variants, that is, with the rest, they need those quirks or added hardpoints. Niche mechs like the Dragon don't have the tonnage to benefit from added hardpoints, though, so they will always need to be at least slightly overquirked to be competitive.

So long story short, quit being idiots. Don't call the entire system bad like those Anarchist types call all governments bad. The problem isn't the system, it's the way that it has been imperfectly implemented. The Firestarters could use minor survivability quirks and added range, they don't need all of these crazy cooldown and heat bonuses. Ravens could use more leg and ST armor bonuses as well as cooldowns, but there's no need to overdo it. The meta mechs need more negative quirks to balance out that everything else isn't superquirked any more, etc. But this is all in a perfect world, until Mech Utopia Online exists, we should be lobbying for little changes instead of demanding PGI pull the perfect answer out of their ass for a multi-faceted question that can be approached a nearly-infinite number of ways.

Edited by Pezzer, 14 June 2015 - 10:59 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

LordKnightFandragon, on 14 June 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

But when applying Clan nerfs, they went back the usual wild hard ass, maniacal swinging of that nerf bat and pummeled those SCR/TBR.

And somehow those are still by far the most common mechs in the game... maybe they didn't get "pummeled" so much after all.

[Juodas Varnas]

Pezzer, on 14 June 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

-snip-

The problem i have is that they used quirks as bandaids for underlying issues.

Take your Dragon for example:
What was it problem?
Its hitboxes.
What did they do?
They added insane weapon-specific quirks to it (even then, they only "fixed" one of the variants)
What they should have done?
FIX THE BLOODY HITBOXES.

Let's take another example, Stalker 4N:
What was it problem?
It was outclassed by every other Stalker variant, because it lacked a single missile hardpoint in comparison to others
What did they do?
Overquirked it with specific weapon quirks.
What they COULD have done?
Increase its mobility, twisting ability or an extra module slot in exchange for the hardpoint it loses.

I will agree. Quirks in THEORY were an OK idea. They would've allowed for more diversity, some extra flavor for different mechs, but instead they completely half-arsed it and decided to use it as bloody bandaids for problems they refuse to fix.

[Pezzer]

Juodas Varnas, on 14 June 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

The problem i have is that they used quirks as bandaids for underlying issues.

Take your Dragon for example:
What was it problem?
Its hitboxes.
What did they do?
They added insane weapon-specific quirks to it (even then, they only "fixed" one of the variants)
What they should have done?
FIX THE BLOODY HITBOXES.

Let's take another example, Stalker 4N:
What was it problem?
It was outclassed by every other Stalker variant, because it lacked a single missile hardpoint in comparison to others
What did they do?
Overquirked it with specific weapon quirks.
What they COULD have done?
Increase its mobility, twisting ability or an extra module slot in exchange for the hardpoint it loses.

I will agree. Quirks in THEORY were an OK idea. They would've allowed for more diversity, some extra flavor for different mechs, but instead they completely half-arsed it and decided to use it as bloody bandaids for problems they refuse to fix.

The Dragon's hitboxes are great, idk what you're smoking. The problem is that the CT juts out, so it's incredibly easy to hit from most frontal angles. And redoing the CT would cost too much to fix, same is true for the Awesome and various oversized mechs. They're going for the cheaper fix not because they want to apply a bandaid, but because if they go the expensive route it will ruin the game in the long run (delays for new mechs, new maps, Alex will have to make new art probably, etc etc etc).

And really, anyone can learn to live with the large CT. Makes using XLs easier. The Dragon's problem has always been its' limited hardpoints and ballistic dependency.

Edited by Pezzer, 14 June 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[Moldur]

It's like people expect a Prius to be competitive in a drag race with a GTR and a Lamborghini. Some mechs should just be better than others. Period. Sorry.