129 replies to this topic

[Blockpirat]

I would love to test, but there don't seem be be enough players on the test server. Can't get a match.

[Lily from animove]

Blockpirat, on 11 September 2015 - 11:06 PM, said:

I would love to test, but there don't seem be be enough players on the test server. Can't get a match.

be patience, take time lookign att he mechs, hopefully there will be more palyers at EU primetime. yet the double XP weekend will interfere with this a lot.

[Koshirou]

Whoa, good thing they started it before putting the Marauder up for pre-order. Looks like I'm going to save my money after all. Or invest it into a different game, seeing as how this "no weapon quirks anymore" translates into "IS players need not bother with MWO anymore".

[IraqiWalker]

Koshirou, on 11 September 2015 - 11:24 PM, said:

Whoa, good thing they started it before putting the Marauder up for pre-order. Looks like I'm going to save my money after all. Or invest it into a different game, seeing as how this "no weapon quirks anymore" translates into "IS players need not bother with MWO anymore".

You guys really need to understand how reading, and testing work.

This is a first draft of changes. We're not even close to a final draft, and somehow you immediately jumped to that phase?

[Jaspbo1]

I like that the Commando seems to handle heat better, even without it's weapon quirks...hmmm, also it can now look more than 106 degrees to the left and right, finally.

Not sure how the Radar range will work in the long run, it kinda makes every light 'mech a scout, including the Firestarter and Hankyu (The latter being a recon 'mech naturally in lore but functions more as a brawler/skirmisher) oh and with CAP and Adv. Sensor range, 1200m target range, pretty meaty.

Have to mess around a bit more, it's shaping up.

[YUyahoo]

How is making the least agile mechs in this game less agile a 'balance improvement'? Some mechs have crazy armor/structure quirks while other variants of the same chassis have 0 armor/structure quirks (most extreme example I saw is the Atlas DDC which has 0 vs the Atlas D which has 47-50 !). Almost every mech has huge amounts of negative quirks (in fact of the 100+ mechs I have on the PTS only 3 do not have any negative quirks...2 locusts and the Anansi). When the quirk system we have now was introduced a year ago and all (but a small number of) mechs lost their negative quirks it was awesome (sure it wasn't perfect but many assaults for example were once again agile enough to compete with some of the faster mechs in the game). This new proposed "re-balance" appears to be removing this mobility again (but in a completely random fashion...for example one of my Timberwolves has no bonus or penalty to its turn rate, the second has a -5% turn rate but the third has a -35% turn rate <---no not a typo, seriously a -35%!). In fairness I have only been able to try a few mechs out in testing grounds (not against live opponents) so I really don't know how these "neutered" mechs will preform against other "neutered" mechs but so far this "re-balance" feels more like a (or maybe several) huge step backwards rather than the "leap forward" PGI feels this is. I do kind of like the idea of different weight classes having increased/decreased time to get info on a target depending on range, this does add some new flavor to certain chassis. In general I have never been a fan of giving anything many negative characteristics (I'd rather have mechs with no penalties and the ones with buffs maybe have more or greater numerical buffs to compensate).
I'm not sure how good an idea it is to remove ALL weapon quirks (heat, range, rate of fire, velocity, ect) for both IS and clan...perhaps these quirks truly were "not working as PGI intended", but completely removing them has once again made some mechs (more specifically certain variants of mechs) that were "better" at using certain types of weapons no better or worse than any other mech (Awesomes come to mind here...and the Hellslinger loosing its 50% environmental quirk is really sad...it was the reason I was going to buy that hero mech in this weekends anniversary sale, guess I won't need to buy more MC afterall). Weapon quirks will no longer determine the "meta", now it will be all about the variant that has the most mobility/sensor/armor/structure buffs with the least amount of penalties to the same. I know its early but I am sorry PGI I don't think this "re-balance" is any closer or better than the system we currently have...sadly I honestly think it is worse because now more than ever it seems very obvious that certain variants of a chassis are clearly superior to other variants. I hope there are A LOT more changes before this goes live (fingers crossed)

Edited by YUyahoo, 12 September 2015 - 12:09 AM.

[Lily from animove]

I think this system is WAY too complicated, if you tak clans and their pods into account, nearly all new palyers will NOT understand this, while everyone into tho matter will have a massive tool of min/maxing here.

and tbh, the interpod balance is SOOOO BROKEN, and imbalanced. I cna build emchs wiht the same firepower one well quirked one horribly quirked. The min max war gets real here.

there needs to be a LOAD done to make this truly balanced. correct.

only the legs in most cases seems to be in a good interpod balance. yet thy are in a bad intermech balance. NVA legs can do the same as SCR legs, and this will never cause a balance between thsoe mechs.

Edited by Lily from animove, 11 September 2015 - 11:59 PM.

[PFC Carsten]

I think I can see where you're going esp. with the negative acc/dec/movement quirks for the heavier i.e. high alpha chassis, but I think most people won't like it.

Have only been toying around in the playgrounds 'til now, so I've yet to see how for example Lights stack up against Heavies now, but I've got a gut feeling that Heavy/Assault pilots will be feeling even more salty towards their investment (if any, it will have a tendency to be larger) when they're even more easily death-circled (for that, f**k targetting time, you just keep peeling off the back altogether).

[A sebaceous cyst]

How would I sum up this "balance pass"? Well, just look at the Battlemaster...one variant has 5ish negative quirks and 0 positive quirks while another variant has 1-2 negative quirks and 10+ positive quirks...can someone from PGI please explain to me how these two Battlemasters are equal to each other?????So far all this proposed "balance pass" has done is make me appreciate our current quirk system infinitely more! Generally I have really liked the direction PGI has been taking in the past year...until now. Even though this is just the initial proposal I honestly see far more imbalance than balance. Someone should start a petition to stop this balance pass before there is another mass exodus

[IraqiWalker]

A sebaceous cyst, on 12 September 2015 - 12:47 AM, said:

How would I sum up this "balance pass"? Well, just look at the Battlemaster...one variant has 5ish negative quirks and 0 positive quirks while another variant has 1-2 negative quirks and 10+ positive quirks...can someone from PGI please explain to me how these two Battlemasters are equal to each other?????So far all this proposed "balance pass" has done is make me appreciate our current quirk system infinitely more! Generally I have really liked the direction PGI has been taking in the past year...until now. Even though this is just the initial proposal I honestly see far more imbalance than balance. Someone should start a petition to stop this balance pass before there is another mass exodus

This is not a balance pass.

Seriously, how do people not understand what is going on here, despite it being mentioned at the beginning of most posts. This is the beginning of the test, of the first draft, of the first stage of the possible balance pass.

Why are people treating this like it's a final product?

[PFC Carsten]

IraqiWalker, on 12 September 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

Why are people treating this like it's a final product?

Probably and partially because they seem to have had higher hopes for the first try from game design professionals with insight to a myriad of server statistics and partially because they do not want their meta to change.

I am rather aligned with the first part, because just promoting information warfare isn't nearly enough. You need to MASSIVELY lower the TTK (remember tabletop - ONE round was about 30 secs) in order for more communication and tactics to make any sense. Example: Teammate calling for help - if he does not stand right next to you, it's almost always to late until you arrive at the scene.

And you need to take care that (tweaked) 'Mech speeds do not break the limits of what your engine can handle.

[Quardak]

Most player have no mind to think forward... to develope this and check what we can get out of this.

Most Player can LOOK and SCREAM !

what if we share the target info WE acknowledget with our teammates trough our IW Systems i.e. after 3 seconds the enemy become available for my teammates Scanners

[IraqiWalker]

PFC Carsten, on 12 September 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

Probably and partially because they seem to have had higher hopes for the first try from game design professionals with insight to a myriad of server statistics and partially because they do not want their meta to change.

I am rather aligned with the first part, because just promoting information warfare isn't nearly enough. You need to MASSIVELY lower the TTK (remember tabletop - ONE round was about 30 secs) in order for more communication and tactics to make any sense. Example: Teammate calling for help - if he does not stand right next to you, it's almost always to late until you arrive at the scene.

And you need to take care that (tweaked) 'Mech speeds do not break the limits of what your engine can handle.

In tabletop a single turn was 10 seconds, and a proper fight between 2 mechs lasted no more than 30-40 seconds. This game already has TTK equal to if not better than TT.


As for why they are treating it as a final product, it could be what you said, or it could be because 95% lack reading comprehension, or they just need something to whine about. Honestly, I wish I can drop them in Baghdad right now. Let's see if they can survive a week in my neighborhood. Maybe that'll teach them some common sense, and foresight.

Quardak, on 12 September 2015 - 01:13 AM, said:

Most player have no mind to think forward... to develope this and check what we can get out of this.

Most Player can LOOK and SCREAM !

what if we share the target info WE acknowledget with our teammates trough our IW Systems i.e. after 3 seconds the enemy become available for my teammates Scanners

I've noticed that. Most people can't see past what's in front of them. Not even 2 steps ahead.

[K19]

That and an error ask for review of "quirks" to players for the "quirks" represent the specific technology of Mech. This and that has to be taken into account and in your team has experts in this area. They should do this because these people were redrawing the mech why not take in the archives of the mech that yes it was a good read of the "quirks".

[Michal R]

Iraqi we understand this. But when you log to PSR and see what they want to do, you think: I have bad felling about this.
Clan mech are the same, only different are in omni pods. Then why they have different quirks?
I don't understand this.
Why the same chassi have buffs to acceleration and deceleration and others have negative quirks to this?
Why you mess with degrees? This is most stupid think I ever seen.
Why one Atlas have +50 CT structure, and other not?
There is many many other things i see and don't understand.
There will be only few chassis that will be playable.

[T0rmented]

@ iraqiWalker :
People are screaming about the sky falling: It could be because every time some kind of abortion makes it to the PTS, we get it within a couple of weeks, regardless of the problems highlighted and feedback generated.
My feelings:
Weapon quirks are a polarising topic some love some loathe. Personally I was happy when the old 'unicorn' mechs started appearing again after the quirkening.
It is going to be a sad day when these quirks come in and our current crop of "used-to-be-unicorns-but-now-they-everywhere-mechs disappear to the back of the mechbay, only brought into daylight to be ridiculed, again.
Also sensors dont mean anything to direct fire. PGI may have just taken a dump on their own favoured noob cannon (LRM)

[IraqiWalker]

Michal R, on 12 September 2015 - 01:17 AM, said:

Iraqi we understand this. But when you log to PSR and see what they want to do, you think: I have bad felling about this.
Clan mech are the same, only different are in omni pods. Then why they have different quirks?
I don't understand this.
Why the same chassi have buffs to acceleration and deceleration and others have negative quirks to this?
Why you mess with degrees? This is most stupid think I ever seen.
Why one Atlas have +50 CT structure, and other not?
There is many many other things i see and don't understand.
There will be only few chassis that will be playable.

See, that I'm fine with. Ask questions, offer feedback, don't just rage mindlessly (I'm not referring to you personally, here), and treat these propositions as a final result. This is a first draft of a first step of a multi-phase balance project. So offer suggestions, offer feedback, and criticize.

T0rmented, on 12 September 2015 - 01:21 AM, said:

@ iraqiWalker :
People are screaming about the sky falling: It could be because every time some kind of abortion makes it to the PTS, we get it within a couple of weeks, regardless of the problems highlighted and feedback generated.
My feelings:
Weapon quirks are a polarising topic some love some loathe. Personally I was happy when the old 'unicorn' mechs started appearing again after the quirkening.
It is going to be a sad day when these quirks come in and our current crop of "used-to-be-unicorns-but-now-they-everywhere-mechs disappear to the back of the mechbay, only brought into daylight to be ridiculed, again.
Also sensors dont mean anything to direct fire. PGI may have just taken a dump on their own favoured noob cannon (LRM)

See, that's a good example of what we should be doing.
Tormented isn't going on about this being a stupid balance pass, because he knows it's not final. He saw actual problems, and highlighted them. Suddenly, this post is constructive. Instead of wasting megabytes

[A sebaceous cyst]

IraqiWalker, on 12 September 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

This is not a balance pass.

Seriously, how do people not understand what is going on here, despite it being mentioned at the beginning of most posts. This is the beginning of the test, of the first draft, of the first stage of the possible balance pass.

Why are people treating this like it's a final product?

Iraqi when will you understand that is proposed balance pass actually is what PGI is proposing as a balance pass and they are asking us to test it and give OUR feedback on it (report what we like and what we don't like, point out what issues we see). PGI wants feedback, so please stop trying to diminish anyone who is offering their feedback. My opinion may not be the same as yours and that is perfectly fine, I don't have to like what you like and you don't have to like what I like about this proposed balance pass or anything else...I am providing MY feedback to PGI because PGI requested it

[BLOOD WOLF]

A sebaceous cyst, on 12 September 2015 - 01:27 AM, said:

Iraqi when will you understand that is proposed balance pass actually is what PGI is proposing as a balance pass and they are asking us to test it and give OUR feedback on it (report what we like and what we don't like, point out what issues we see). PGI wants feedback, so please stop trying to diminish anyone who is offering their feedback. My opinion may not be the same as yours and that is perfectly fine, I don't have to like what you like and you don't have to like what I like about this proposed balance pass or anything else...I am providing MY feedback to PGI because PGI requested it

Construcitve feedback, not conclusive statements that do no lead to anything. IE. this sucks i wasted my time and thats my feedback(That helps no one)

[Juodas Varnas]

BLOOD WOLF, on 12 September 2015 - 01:35 AM, said:

this sucks i wasted my time

Well... It does suck.
A lot.