40 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Squarebasher, on 12 September 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

I think that is an unfair comment, it is testing.

When you test, you start from a baseline from understanding.

It makes zero sense where the Spider hero gets all the durability quirks ever, but the 5V... arguably the WORST mech in the game... gets a negative quirk for sensors.

Where is the logic in that?

[Monkey Lover]

Deathlike, on 12 September 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

When you test, you start from a baseline from understanding.

It makes zero sense where the Spider hero gets all the durability quirks ever, but the 5V... arguably the WORST mech in the game... gets a negative quirk for sensors.

Where is the logic in that?

If what they said was true about running the quirks though a script then the script must have saw the 12 jj and called this spider OP .

[CtrlAltWheee]

I haven't understood what's the purpose of the sensor quirks positive or negative. Increase ttk because you don't know where to shoot the weak spot?

I was kind of happy with where things were and didn't think clans were so far off from being balanced. One of things they did right with this new pass is reducing twist range which is a good tradeoff for the clans' speed and straight line acceleration.

The sensor stuff seems convoluted and addressing a problem that didn't exist. From this limited slice I don't see how it enhances a sense of information warfare.

A cool quirk for a mech is being able to select multiple doritos, or built-in seismic. I like a few scouting mechs having the built-in target decay module. Or things exotic for the rvn3l. The forums have so many good ideas.

What's on PTS seems kind of nonsensical and uninspired. Sorry PGI. I love you. This one wasn't a win for me.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 September 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

Orcrist also pointed out that when one has a limited time window, spreading different levels of quirks across the same chassis allows one to collect data on them a lot faster.

Of course, that requires people to be willing to try them......and laughably, even on a test server people are more concerned with their Epeen than giving actual telemetry to the game.

Where is your feedback from the PTS?


I saw Deathlike on the PTS for hours, I saw Fup there for hours.

I saw guys like JagerXII on the PTS for a few hours.



Were you there? Where is your feedback?

Or are you just going to spew hot air about how wrong all of us that were on the PTS are?

Edited by Ultimatum X, 12 September 2015 - 11:02 AM.

[Mazzyplz]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 12 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

I only had time to check out the Blackjacks, and noticed the Arrow had the best quirks of the bunch. Good to see PGI leaving its $$$ chassis butter-side up.

In all seriousness though, to answer you question, each variant of each chassis is going to focus on a different aspect of combat. Mechs with lots of energy hardpoints have poor target acquisition and retention because they are not scout mechs, they are hunter-killers.

Although I admit I do not know the mechanics of +X% target acquisition and +X% target retention. although out of the gate it seems like somewhat of a force multiplier for mechs with ECM, which multiplies those penalties.

not only the arrow, check out other heroes

the pretty baby has +20% improved mobility where as the 8r gets shafter by -20%.

that's a HUUUGE difference.

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Mordin Ashe, on 12 September 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

Should all forumwarriors get five matches instead of one post here, that would be great. Is theorycrafting so much prefered over actual playing the game?

EDIT: Guys, lets be constructive. This testing must be done by us. Either we do that voluntarily or we will see it shoved up our arses Glados-style.

booohiiiica then, because no one is PTSing.

Edited by ArchMage Sparrowhawk, 12 September 2015 - 11:25 AM.

[MechaBattler]

It doesn't help they had months of data on the previous quirks. They could have drawn some parallels from that. Instead it's a clean slate and they added some funky sensor mechanics. Is it a stretch to say that because Paul didn't like where it was going, he just choose to kill off the weapon quirks?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Mordin Ashe, on 12 September 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

Should all forumwarriors get five matches instead of one post here, that would be great. Is theorycrafting so much prefered over actual playing the game?

EDIT: Guys, lets be constructive. This testing must be done by us. Either we do that voluntarily or we will see it shoved up our arses Glados-style.

Weeelllll...I tried to get in the PTS, but it didnt work.

[Mavairo]

Ultimatum X, on 12 September 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

Where is your feedback from the PTS?


I saw Deathlike on the PTS for hours, I saw Fup there for hours.

I saw guys like JagerXII on the PTS for a few hours.



Were you there? Where is your feedback?

Or are you just going to spew hot air about how wrong all of us that were on the PTS are?

If he's like me, he tried getting into matches for a few hours and then gave up... because no one's actually qued save for all of five people that want to see the mechs in action.

[Deathlike]

Ask for a PTS party.

We'll share tales of how the Gargles are the new potential meta, and give our condolences to the Enforcer-5P and other mechs that got screwed.

[Zolaz]

I dont think the requirkening is about balance, it is about selling different mechs.

[SaltBeef]

Can we actually play matches on the PTS or just the testing grounds? I am in but just searching forever

Edited by SaltBeef, 12 September 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[Ultimax]

Mavairo, on 12 September 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

If he's like me, he tried getting into matches for a few hours and then gave up... because no one's actually qued save for all of five people that want to see the mechs in action.

You'll need to do private lobbies to even pretend to test with all of the variables and the complete removal of all IS firepower quirks.

Except for the ENF-5P, you can test out it's -3500% torso twist speed in the testing grounds and make a definitive statement on it. (most of us are hoping it's a typo, and then some of us are hoping they come to their senses and don't give a **** mech any negative torso twist at all).

Edited by Ultimatum X, 12 September 2015 - 12:36 PM.

[GrimRiver]

Appogee, on 12 September 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

How long til Fallout 4 launches...?

Not soon enough, sadly.

[Deathlike]

Ultimatum X, on 12 September 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

You'll need to do private lobbies to even pretend to test with all of the variables and the complete removal of all IS firepower quirks.

Except for the ENF-5P, you can test out it's -3500% torso twist speed in the testing grounds and make a definitive statement on it. (most of us are hoping it's a typo, and then some of us are hoping they come to their senses and don't give a **** mech any negative torso twist at all).

Well, we have learned that there's a minimum+max torso twist rate enforced by the game (the +300% Executioner quirk is just as effective as the +1000% Gargles quirk), so there's that.

[Ultimax]

Deathlike, on 12 September 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

Well, we have learned that there's a minimum+max torso twist rate enforced by the game (the +300% Executioner quirk is just as effective as the +1000% Gargles quirk), so there's that.

Have they learned that?



The ENF-5P can't even torso twist at all, those 4x Ballistic hardpoints in the arms are totally worth the loss of the ability to spread damage.

[Deathlike]

Ultimatum X, on 12 September 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

Have they learned that?

Learned what exactly?

Quote

The ENF-5P can't even torso twist at all, those 4x Ballistic hardpoints in the arms are totally worth the loss of the ability to spread damage.

Well, we have a pretty damn good picture what a mech would be like if it had no torso twist. Now everyone can experience it!

[Ultimax]

Deathlike, on 12 September 2015 - 01:03 PM, said:

Learned what exactly?

I think it's yet another example of what is useful and what is nonsense.


It's just like the prior quirk passes where they proved they don't understand the balance of different weapons by giving 3 different mechs similar quirks for 3 different weapons - except the weapons themselves intrinsically have different values.


+50% Gauss CD is much better than +50% LB-10 CD because the Gauss is inherently a better weapon.


We gave feedback on that, I actually created polls and charts and threads placing the different weapons into tiers.

I put it on the forums, on reddit, I PMd it to specific staff at PGI.

I tweeted it to Russ.



As with much of our other feedback, it went ignored.




Which is behind what I mean by "have they learned that there are minimums and maximums to just how useful a specific buff can actually be?"


This also applies to the InfoTech changes, there are minimums and maximums where this stuff is even relevant for gameplay, and therefor use as a balancing mechanism.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 12 September 2015 - 01:10 PM.

[Deathlike]

Ultimatum X, on 12 September 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

I think it's yet another example of what is useful and what is nonsense.


It's just like the prior quirk passes where they proved they don't understand the balance of different weapons by giving 3 different mechs similar quirks for 3 different weapons - except the weapons themselves intrinsically have different values.


+50% Gauss CD is much better than +50% LB-10 CD because the Gauss is inherently a better weapon.


We gave feedback on that, I actually created polls and charts and threads placing the different weapons into tiers.

I put it on the forums, on reddit, I PMd it to specific staff at PGI.

I tweeted it to Russ.



As with much of our other feedback, it went ignored.




Which is behind what I mean by "have they learned that there are minimums and maximums to just how useful a specific buff can actually be?"


This also applies to the InfoTech changes, there are minimums and maximums where this stuff is even relevant for gameplay, and therefor use as a balancing mechanism.

Just so you know... I wasn't being serious in my response, and you gave a full blown answer for something that's not obvious to PGI.

[Ultimax]

Deathlike, on 12 September 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

Just so you know... I wasn't being serious in my response, and you gave a full blown answer for something that's not obvious to PGI.

I know you weren't but I felt it was worth fleshing out.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 12 September 2015 - 02:08 PM.