77 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Nobody likes change, a negative response is almost guaranteed, especially with something like this.

So moving beyond that and operating under the assumption that this is just a first, alpha-level look at rebalancing and not something that's going live, what have we got:</p>

1. I'm good with the concept of the sensor changes. They add some flavor and dynamism to the feel of the fight. I don't consider them relevant to balance in the current format but I don't object to them

2. Mobility rebalances are hard to get a feel for the validity of. Some make no sense, they mostly seem to just make assaults and big heavies move like mediums while nerfing mediums and lights. I get the concept of a mobility rebalance I'm just not sure this has a lot to build on.

3. Structure perks are nice but again, oddly sporadic. Structure buffs just create zombies and without a weapon rebalance are almost impossible to gauge.

Which takes us to the big one.

GANK BEFORE TANK

I understand that the idea was to try and balance these other factors first but with weapons being so out of whack I can not accurately or effectively gauge the value of structure, mobility or sensor quirks relative from one mech to the other.

I can not stress enough that I think this needs approached from a balance weapons first, then structure, then mobility, then sensors angle or it's never going to get good data. Keep the current sensor quirks in; the overall changes to sensors are relevant. However we need to look at balancing weapons, possibly reworking LRMs and other potentially big shifts in heat management/weapon/combat stats overall and that needs done BEFORE we can effectively review these other changes because weapon imbalance sweeps away every other balance factor.

I get the desire to kick that can down the road. Any sort of big Clan weapon nerfs (which is part of what we're really talking about here) is going to create rage. Same thing with big changes to missiles and ACs. Without that though the other balance changes are just fluff and of minimal relevance.

We need to balance in order of importance. Weapons first. Then structure buffs. Then mobility. Then sensors. If need be you can then go back through for a general tweak.

Right now however the weapon balance issues overwhelm any relevance to the others. Is the TW too mobile? Hard to say given that it's got a massive firepower advantage. Did it do well because it tweaked for good sensors or because the other team was mostly IS mechs? If the biggest things are not tweaked first the smaller, more subtle things can't be accurately discerned.

Anyone else have any big take-aways that are not 'ZOMG SUX' or 'ZOMG L2P' sort of stuff? Specifics? If you take a step back from any sense of rage and assume this patch will never go live until everything is balanced, what's your takeaways?

[ShinobiHunter]

I'll admit, I freaked out a bit when I started reading the quirks, and I apologize to PGI for that. I'll download the PTS tonight and try it out for a while so I can give some decent feedback.

That said, it seems the quirks are very chaotic within the chassis variants and don't even try to keep the purpose of the mech relevant. With the previous quirk pass they assigned roles for the mechs and they were given quirks to build on that. This time it seems entirely random. They need to define the chassis role, then tweak the variants from there.

[SilentScreamer]

I haven't gotten any actual matches in, so all my comments are based on Testing Grounds runs and mechlab theory. I am hoping to see more players in Public Test to actually get some live play in.

I like that a new type of quirk has been added. I am afraid because of the large quirks in accelleration, structure etc. I am seeing. I think PGI is being too heavy-handed and it will turn into the weapon quirks all over again.

My original thoughts here. http://mwomercs.com/...70#entry4684770

[MischiefSC]

So it's important to operate under the assumption that none of this is going live until all the weapon balances are in, at least not in terms of removing the weapon quirks, since that would completely break the game and make it totally unbalanced.

Assuming that this is all staying on the PTS until it's all good, what are some takeaways?

[Andi Nagasia]

i think the Sensor Quirks feel better after you know how they work,
(Sensor Items Descriptions And Uses Write Up!(New Quirk Idea And Ecm Change!))

[Alexander Miyamoto]

ShinobiHunter, on 12 September 2015 - 01:10 PM, said:

I'll admit, I freaked out a bit when I started reading the quirks, and I apologize to PGI for that. I'll download the PTS tonight and try it out for a while so I can give some decent feedback.

That said, it seems the quirks are very chaotic within the chassis variants and don't even try to keep the purpose of the mech relevant. With the previous quirk pass they assigned roles for the mechs and they were given quirks to build on that. This time it seems entirely random. They need to define the chassis role, then tweak the variants from there.

Can't speak for all Mechs, but at least for the BLR they aren't chaotic IMO: http://mwomercs.com/...he-blr-chassis/

Except one variant, i see a pattern for all of the mechs.

[Gas Guzzler]

Honestly if they had just kept most of the weapon quirks, and dialed back the super ones, and then applied the structure and sensor changes, I would be a lot happier.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 September 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

Honestly if they had just kept most of the weapon quirks, and dialed back the super ones, and then applied the structure and sensor changes, I would be a lot happier.

The problem still comes back to 'better to balance weapons than use quirks'.

I'd rather quirks be movement/armor specific than weapon specific and weapon balance be better. That seems to be the gist of what Paul was saying. The problem is that we need a weapon balance before we can effectively balance the other stuff IMO.

[Gas Guzzler]

MischiefSC, on 12 September 2015 - 02:33 PM, said:

The problem still comes back to 'better to balance weapons than use quirks'.

I'd rather quirks be movement/armor specific than weapon specific and weapon balance be better. That seems to be the gist of what Paul was saying. The problem is that we need a weapon balance before we can effectively balance the other stuff IMO.

I agree with you, but I also feel that balance was pretty good especially for certain IS chassis, where others needed help or had some lopsided form of balance.

I am still a fan of some quirks on certain mechs. I'm not looking forward to my Black Knight with low hard points, no JJs, and 9 energy weapons without any heat gen help....

That is just one example.

[Mogney]

Well if they didn't want this kind of reaction, they shouldn't have asked us to test something as badly unbalanced as this while calling it a balance pass.

We were ASKED to comment on whats CURRENTLY on the PTS (not what we want to be on the PTS next week), and that is what we are doing, what is on the PTS is an abomination compared to what we have on the live servers right now.

[Mystere]

Dr Tachyon, on 12 September 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

Well if they didn't want this kind of reaction, they shouldn't have asked us to test something as badly unbalanced as this while calling it a balance pass.

We were ASKED to comment on whats CURRENTLY on the PTS (not what we want to be on the PTS next week), and that is what we are doing, what is on the PTS is an abomination compared to what we have on the live servers right now.

But they did say weapons were coming later. So comments should be made with that in mind.

[MischiefSC]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 September 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

I agree with you, but I also feel that balance was pretty good especially for certain IS chassis, where others needed help or had some lopsided form of balance.

I am still a fan of some quirks on certain mechs. I'm not looking forward to my Black Knight with low hard points, no JJs, and 9 energy weapons without any heat gen help....

That is just one example.

The point though is that if everyone is on a more even keel then you're not gimped, just everyone is lower on TTK.

However I'm all for weapon quirks for sub-par chassis. I think what PGI was trying to do here was try to balance mobility/sensors/etc. and then put weapon changes in later.

Which is my big issue; I need balance on weapons before I can effectively give feedback on mobility, structure and sensor stuff. Otherwise the huge differences in weapons skews everything else. You can't do that with weapon quirks however as they're chassis-specific. It skews your results. Was it the mobility quirks or the weapon quirks on that variant that provided the results?

So balance weapons without quirks, then balance weapon quirks. Then balance structure quirks to fill in some differences, then mobility as well to help bring to parity. Then sensors to give a flavor of role warfare.

Because, again, sensors are irrelevant to overall balance. Utterly and completely and totally, without question, irrelevant to actual fighting balance.

[Johnny Z]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 September 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

I agree with you, but I also feel that balance was pretty good especially for certain IS chassis, where others needed help or had some lopsided form of balance.

I am still a fan of some quirks on certain mechs. I'm not looking forward to my Black Knight with low hard points, no JJs, and 9 energy weapons without any heat gen help....

That is just one example.

Balance is close on the live servers. Test is tough to say but the game play is improved with the sensors changes.

Problems on live server

- Heavies, assaults, mediums moving to fast for the SIM, heat generation increase at high speeds should be looked at.
- IS XL engine needs shutdown instead of insta boom
- TTK to low
- Some lights packing to much firepower, suggest huge increase of heat generation at very high speeds.
- Omni mech free CASE on every component at no cost
- Gauss charge
- lack of TAG always on
- AMS to weak
- ECM to strong, maybe ecm stacking removed, alternatives and counters improved.
- All omni weapons need a point of damage taken off including PPC and Gauss, also something with missiles to account for half weight. To counter this, a reduction in Inner Sphere super quirks.

Other suggestions based on live server

- more ammo for inner sphere mechs
- more structure for all mechs especially inner sphere mechs.

Suggestion for test server

- make sensors, mobility, structure quirks chassis reliant to give some structure to the quirks.
- make weapons quirks(positive and negative) varient reliant for balance.

Edited by Johnny Z, 12 September 2015 - 08:26 PM.

[Lily from animove]

Andi Nagasia, on 12 September 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

i think the Sensor Quirks feel better after you know how they work,
(Sensor Items Descriptions And Uses Write Up!(New Quirk Idea And Ecm Change!))

No they don't, they just show you that usual Acquisition and even scanning is past the "matters" zone.. And so just slap on wepaons as much as you can, poke, fire on sight and retreat. Already now, many mechs that are poke style do not target. Now the new system will just create a situation for many mechs where targeting is either too slow, or too slow +1.

it is hard to describe the "balance" but I take a chassis, I look at the quirks and alerady 3/4th is obsolete, by not being a proper choice. What is left is what you work with. But this is not much. And when you then go to the next chassis, you do the same. then you compare those both chassis, and often you can see, the "new balance" created bigger gaps as the one we have on live. And if that is going live. Mechdiversity is even going to be lower.

I think PGI overrated the importance of sensors by far. Especially from a point of "premade" unit groups When regularly playing together, the targetting and scanning gets nearly no significant value anymore. Especially since lately we had so many ecm mechs that "not having a target" was rather standard.

Edited by Lily from animove, 13 September 2015 - 01:04 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Play CW. If you're IS fighting Clans you generally play 30-60% of the match never getting any targeting info at all. You should be focusing legs or CT; if you're not and your team isn't then no magic dorito is likely to help you.

[Johnny Z]

MischiefSC, on 12 September 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

Play CW. If you're IS fighting Clans you generally play 30-60% of the match never getting any targeting info at all. You should be focusing legs or CT; if you're not and your team isn't then no magic dorito is likely to help you.

100% right. Rarely get targeting vrs a full clan team. Thats no joke, one may stray for a moment only. Thats with BAP also. I found it next to useless but I did give it a try.

Edited by Johnny Z, 12 September 2015 - 04:30 PM.

[KursedVixen]

I hope they change the stuff there's a decent build for the timberwolf that only has positive overall quirks as if it wasn't OP already. I fully believe the Timberwolves should have no quirks at all.

[Johnny Z]

KursedVixen, on 12 September 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

I hope they change the stuff there's a decent build for the timberwolf that only has positive overall quirks as if it wasn't OP already. I fully believe the Timberwolves should have no quirks at all.

The worste possible thing that could happen for me is if inner sphere gets easy mode. But having damage nearly double in some cases for one side is a bit much. To much and for to long. Glad there is a big rebalance finally in the works.

[EmperorMyrf]

I agree with the OP post here, but I also feel that the balancing pass that is on the test server was necessary as part of the process. With weapon specific quirks present trying to balance weapons is going to get tricky, so with this first pass of removing them we have a better idea of all the sore spots in weapon balance, even if we can probably list them off from memory. Ideally, I think the balance passes should be something like this:

Quirks pass -> Weapons pass -> Quirk refinement -> Weapon refinement

Balancing either the mechs themselves or weapons should not be done in a vacuum, and adjusting one will affect the other and vice versa. But of course if this subforum is any indication seeing the results of each individual balance pass by itself is going to be met with a lot of whining, I'm sure PGI expects this.

As far as the quirks themselves, I think that the idea to remove weapon-specific quirks was definitely needed for multiple reasons (skewed weapon balance, forced build styles etc.). If part of the weapon balance is an overarching decrease in DPS/increase in TTK then the other 3 balancing attributes (mobility, protection, and infotech) will be more prevalent and the quirks will stand out a bit harder than they do now.

EDIT: Formatting

Edited by EmperorMyrf, 12 September 2015 - 05:08 PM.

[Krivvan]

100% agree and this was my biggest issue with the PTS direction: balancing from the complete opposite direction.

Although I'd put mobility higher on the list than durability, but not so strongly that I'd really argue with you on that.