34 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 July 2015 - 03:51 AM, said:

They are about as Btech authentic as Pinpoint Convergence alphas we have in this game. So, I guess you want total random hit assignments? You point the reticle, if the Server says you hit the mech, then it RNGs where?

Otherwise?

I don't like the Pin Point Alphas (without the 80s-90s version of a Clan targeting computer that is) And have supported a wider CoF for my Alpha Strikes Bish. That counter would be fine for many others but doesn't have the impact it needs on me.

[Koniks]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 July 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

These quirks are getting silly. 65 ton mechs are meant to have X armor and structure MAX. Turning Them from Heavies to Assault class chassis is just... lame.

Stock mechs have more armor differentiation across chassis. Customization flattens that out at every tonnage. This restores the differences by using positive quirks rather than lower caps, which is the approach they need to take if they're not going to reduce alpha size, etc.

ETA: as far as it goes, the straight up point armor/IS point additions to specific components are more useful than a low full body %.

Edited by Mizeur, 09 July 2015 - 07:16 AM.

[Mad Porthos]

I'm not sure, but this reminds me of something that used to make the centurion hugely tanky. The centurion used to have weapon bay doors in its left torso, offering damage reduction to that left torso. It also used to have stubby arms/shoulder joins left over after you blew the arm off, a sort of shoulder that would remain even if you blew the left torso with the weapon bay doors on it, off. Further, when you destroyed that left torso on the centurion the damage reduction still would remain for that section, as regards damage being done to destroyed locations being passed inward, with a reduction for each component the damage had to transfer to. Smart pilots would jam that into the enemy, to catch as much damage as possible on it, shielding. That was the REAL centurion shield arm.

What this meant on the old centurion was that if you caught damage on a destroyed left arm and you also had a destroyed left torso ( and the bays were closed when the LT was destroyed) thenwhat ever damage done was halved, then reduced by damage resist on the torso, then halved again before being passed in to the CENTER TORSO.

If you look at that quirk, it basically seems to be damage resistance everywhere on the mech, not just Left Torso. This likely will make this mech tankier with standard engine, as even without the old centurions old shoulder stub, you still have the usual remnants of side torsos which will pass any damage taken inwards at a 50% reduction, plus a 12.5% reduction...possibly even a double reduction, because the damage hitting destroyed side torso might get the damage reduction twice, once on the initial hit, again when it transfers to the Center Torso.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 09 July 2015 - 08:21 AM.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 July 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

These quirks are getting silly. 65 ton mechs are meant to have X armor and structure MAX. Turning Them from Heavies to Assault class chassis is just... lame.

Joe, I understand why this is your perspective on this issue.

Let me ask you a question, in TT was it easier to choose hit a Side Torso on a Thunderbolt or Catapult compared to say, a Grasshopper - and therefore easier to kill or disarm that mech?


That's the situation we have here, due to player skill and actual aiming coming into play - some mechs by the physical design of their model (as well as movement disparity) are simply easier to kill than their raw tonnage/armor/internal structure indicates.


Quirks are attempting to compensate for that in the translation from a table top game with dice, to a FPS.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 July 2015 - 08:42 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 09 July 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

Joe, I understand why this is your perspective on this issue.

Let me ask you a question, in TT was it easier to choose hit a Side Torso on a Thunderbolt or Catapult compared to say, a Grasshopper - and therefore easier to kill or disarm that mech?


That's the situation we have here, due to player skill and actual aiming coming into play - some mechs by the physical design of their model (as well as movement disparity) are simply easier to kill than their raw tonnage/armor/internal structure indicates.


Quirks are attempting to compensate for that in the translation from a table top game with dice, to a FPS.

And so we should punish the players who can aim by making things harder for just some Mechs? Nope. Leave it alone. We don't have to buy every mech in the game to win, and vehicle diversity is overrated.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 July 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

And so we should punish the players who can aim by making things harder for just some Mechs? Nope. Leave it alone. We don't have to buy every mech in the game to win, and vehicle diversity is overrated.

Just going to use some random, made up numbers as an example.

If the baseline survivability is a 3 out 5 total "stars".

And MECH A comes in brand new at 1 out of 5 total stars.


MECH A then gets quirks to bring it up to "3".


No one got punished, a mech got brought up to a rough baseline - what happened was it wasn't made easier than normal to kill MECH A.


Do you think we should make things easier for them to kill MECH A?

Why is it conversely OK to punish a normally skilled player by giving them a mech that has artificially inferior survivability?


Good players aren't punished when they are forced to fight against the baseline, they would be punished if we forced them to fight against higher than the baseline all of the time (thus creating a new baseline).



If you want to keep with train of thought that some one is being punished, I'll just say if you think it's not fair to "punish" the skilled shooter - it's also equally unfair to "punish" the otherwise skilled target.



It's not about punishment, it's about balancing things.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 July 2015 - 09:11 AM.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 July 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

And so we should punish the players who can aim by making things harder for just some Mechs? Nope. Leave it alone. We don't have to buy every mech in the game to win, and vehicle diversity is overrated.

I'm not really pleased at all by how a lot of quirks are implemented right now, but I absolutely don't agree with that "vehicle diversity is overrated" sentiment nor do I see how that sort of attitude is good for the game. Vehicle diversity is a good goal, it just shouldn't be accomplished by insane power creep quirks.

Edited by Pjwned, 09 July 2015 - 10:23 AM.

[Ultimax]

Pjwned, on 09 July 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

I'm not really pleased at all by how a lot of quirks are implemented right now, but I absolutely don't agree with that "vehicle diversity is overrated" sentiment nor do I see how that sort of attitude is good for the game. Vehicle diversity is a good goal, it just shouldn't be accomplished by insane power creep quirks.

Vehicle diversity is more than just a good goal.

It's clear its what this playerbase wants, and it's equally clear this is the primary source of revenue (and content) for MWO.


Players continue to demand more, new mechs. Old favorites, new variants, etc. Good or bad, people want them and PGI needs to sell them to continue the existance of the game.




Now, let me put down my business & gamer hat for a moment.


I actually agree with Joe at heart about vehicle diversity being overrated.

I think the base system of having mechs for every tonnage score (50/55/60/65, etc), on top of having multiple chassis for those mehcs - and then having competitng mechs at the same tonnage range is bordering on silly.


It existed in TT because it made some kind of sense in that game, but really for a modern FPS game it makes very little sense.


Too many mechs will undoubtedly be made superflous, which means a lot of wasted time balancing a system that will never be truly balanced.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 July 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

And so we should punish the players who can aim by making things harder for just some Mechs? Nope. Leave it alone. We don't have to buy every mech in the game to win, and vehicle diversity is overrated.

How is it punishing?

Mech A is supposed to be Tough as Nails Assault Mech. Let's call it ...oh..:Awesome, for short.
Mech B is a Mobile, Moderately Armored Assault Mech. Let's call it...Victor.

Both have the same theoretical Maximums, though traditionally, the AWS is almost fully armored, at 15 tons, whereas the Victor carries a comparatively paltry 11.5 tons.

Take both to maximum, because, well, minmax. On paper, Smurfy and in TT, they would now be equally tough. (No quirks are being considered ATM)

yet reality is: In MWO the Awesome gets cored and and killed far more easily. Because: HITBOXES. Something that doesn't exist in TT, and Smurfys can't recognize.

So who is truly being punished? Without Quirks, it's the Awesome, supposedly the toughest 80 tonner, and tougher in 3025 than anything but an Atlas or Banshee. Yet because of hitboxes, without quirks, both the Zeus and Victor would actually be tougher.

Whether you like to admit it or not, that's the reality of MWO as a FPS.

And the whole "diversity is overrated"? Not only is it incredibly myopic, but pretty selfish.

[Koniks]

You can compensate for bad hitboxes either by adjusting mobility, damage output, or damage tanking compared to mechs of the same tonnage with better hitboxes.

Mechs don't all have to play the same way. But they ought to have a viable role where they can contribute equally, if differently, to the game. Even if it means giving more armor or structure to a mech to accomplish that.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mizeur, on 09 July 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

You can compensate for bad hitboxes either by adjusting mobility, damage output, or damage tanking compared to mechs of the same tonnage with better hitboxes.

Mechs don't all have to play the same way. But they ought to have a viable role where they can contribute equally, if differently, to the game. Even if it means giving more armor or structure to a mech to accomplish that.

When mechs are evaluated for Quirks, one of the first things that should be determined is what the Mech's role is supposed to be, and it's traditional strengths and weaknesses.

For instance, the Grasshopper. It was noted for 3 things. Mobility, in particular it's JJs, Heat Efficiency (23 SHS, only the AWS came with more) and being considered a little light on firepower.

Thus, initial Quirks should have focused on it's Mobility and Heat Generation, and NOT on firepower (aka range, cooldown, etc), initially. Armor could be addressed to comp Hitboxes, if needed.

The Atlas for all it's reputation, actually was not packing that massive of firepower, especially at range. Stalker outgunned it, for instance. But it was the biggest, toughest thing around, and used as a spearhead to break formations. Thus, quirks should focus on it's toughness, by boosting it's armor and structure and then if needed, light weapon quirks, to it's main weapon systems (AC20, Gauss, etc).

Cyclops was a lightly armored, moderately armed command/communication mech. Thus it's primary quirks, if it was in game, should be based around things like sensor range, etc.

Jagermech was a lightly armored long range fire support unit. I would not give it ANY armor or structure buffs, but would certainly give it ballistic range and cooldown quirks up the wazoo. I'd have it ranged to be able to suppress Gauss Mechs.

Obviously, some amount of variation would be used in each variant, much like the Hunchback or Centurion.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Have to agree with Bishop here. And if we're assigning quirks off of the mechs' original tabletop traits then the Thunderbolt should certainly focus on quirks promoting durability. This was a 65 ton mech, just 5 tons shy of the lightest weight of its class, which sported as much or more armor than some assault mechs and just about any heavy mech of its era. The Bolt's claim to fame was not fantastic heat management (it always had heatproblems) or a few hard hitting weapons. It was being "chewing nails and spitting bullets" tough and having a wide engagement envelope due to a varied weapons loadout which it could not afford to fire everything of without shutting down.

[Kin3ticX]

PGI needs to figure out that defensive quirks are the weakest variety of quirk.

Top Dog quirks will have to be a bit larger to have any impact.

For example, all the other thunderbolts have +30 health from structure quirks as it is.

Unfortunately, the Top Dog loses most offensive quirks for about +75 total health (~50 armor, ~25 structure) and it is spread all over the 'mech rather than focused in the side torsos.

Not really sure what PGI is trying to accomplish here.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 09 July 2015 - 02:29 PM.

[Nightmare1]

LOADED, on 08 July 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

NOOO Bishop! You're doing it wrong!
You are supposed to:

For a TDR-5SS copy-cat? No thanks, I already own a TDR-5SS...

[Kin3ticX]

Sort of resurrecting a dead thread

I have seen a few of these in CW

I think this mech needs another 5% health min to compensate for the lack of offensive quirks.