18 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

Detailed Feedback On Balance Pass One. - Do you agree let me know.


What is good

1. Making IS mechs more durable is a good idea.

2. Adding sensor differences is a good idea.

3. Nerfing some clan mechs in a way to make them spread out loadouts and use all omnipods is a good idea.

4. Adding more agility as a quirks is a good idea.

5. Not trying to make lights as effective as a heavy is a good idea allthough I do not know if it will work since they are not really played just as scouts.


What whats wrong.

1. Trying to balance without new IS tech is a huge problem. The current weapons and engines were NEVER ment to be balanced with Clan tech. If you add the new IS weapons they have a closer range to Clans so are easier to balance. The Light Fusion Engine is closer to Clan engines and is easier to balance. Not to mention the other missles and ballistics etc. Doing this means you need less Clan negative quirks and less IS positive quirks.

2. OVer estimating how much sensor range is a balance. If you can see something you cans till shoot it. It really mainly effects streaks and LRMs. Although it does give a bit more role warfare in mid and lower tiers.

3. Not understanding how important range is. Look at the Grasshopper and Timber Wolf Quirks. If both mechs were running IS tech they would be balanced but they are not. The TW has about double the range of the Grasshopper for the same type of loadouts. But the 5J get no armor and only agility quirks? And the others get a bit of structure or nothing except torso like the 5P. This same problem is true for all IS mechs unless they are made for short range or can run dual gauss maybe.

Firepower is not just comparing numbers it is comparing range and how pinpoint and how fast it is.

4. Starting with a "baseline" that is flawed and then trying to build on it.

5. Deciding IS and Clan are not really going to be balanced for now. Going back tot he Grasshopper vs TW above. If I am making a choice between running the two mechs. I am looking at firpower, range, durability, how pinpoint is the firepower, DPS, agility. Sensors will not be a major concern. Now if you compare them. Lets look. You can get alpha range from both. Range is very important and the TW wins by a long shot. Durbility over all varients is better for the TW. Agility TW wins or at worst is close to even depending on build. DPS can do either way depending on builds. But TW always has a range advantage so wins. So besides having fun or playing something different or for CW why would you take a Grasshopper over a TW? Now look at EVERY IS heavy and the same is true for each one. You are better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog even. You can even jump up to Victors and you are still better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog.

By the way I believe they understand the problem above. I think they know that they are only making IS mechs better short and short mid fighters for now. With the hopes it is balaned enough and sets a baseline. Then later they will get better balance when new IS tech is added. But I think they are underestimating the effects of range etc.

[Mazzyplz]

there is a level of either dishonesty or just something else going on with the developers when they say they are

1: making the game more balanced so that underdog chassis are better in the game
2: starting with balancing on a variant per variant level - to ensure all variants have roughly the same utility


this is proven to be a flat out lie.

mechs like the awesome are no better and downright worse compared to other mechs; they make the pretty baby +20% agile and the 8r -20% agile (it moves like a dire wolf) they took an underpowered mech and KILLED IT.


both claims immediately debunked.

so what's the point of this rebalance? what's the point of the first pass?

even missile users are complaining that they can get no locks now. because there is only one or two mechs that can get locks

maybe adding more durability was in theory a good idea; - but if this build of the game was a school assingment you would flunk the course BADLY

the whole thing needs to be thrown out - there is no excuse for just "making tweaks" here.

[Lily from animove]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 September 2015 - 11:00 AM, said:

Detailed Feedback On Balance Pass One. - Do you agree let me know.


What is good

1. Making IS mechs more durable is a good idea.

2. Adding sensor differences is a good idea.

3. Nerfing some clan mechs in a way to make them spread out loadouts and use all omnipods is a good idea.

4. Adding more agility as a quirks is a good idea.

5. Not trying to make lights as effective as a heavy is a good idea allthough I do not know if it will work since they are not really played just as scouts.


What whats wrong.

1. Trying to balance without new IS tech is a huge problem. The current weapons and engines were NEVER ment to be balanced with Clan tech. If you add the new IS weapons they have a closer range to Clans so are easier to balance. The Light Fusion Engine is closer to Clan engines and is easier to balance. Not to mention the other missles and ballistics etc. Doing this means you need less Clan negative quirks and less IS positive quirks.

2. OVer estimating how much sensor range is a balance. If you can see something you cans till shoot it. It really mainly effects streaks and LRMs. Although it does give a bit more role warfare in mid and lower tiers.

3. Not understanding how important range is. Look at the Grasshopper and Timber Wolf Quirks. If both mechs were running IS tech they would be balanced but they are not. The TW has about double the range of the Grasshopper for the same type of loadouts. But the 5J get no armor and only agility quirks? And the others get a bit of structure or nothing except torso like the 5P. This same problem is true for all IS mechs unless they are made for short range or can run dual gauss maybe.

Firepower is not just comparing numbers it is comparing range and how pinpoint and how fast it is.

4. Starting with a "baseline" that is flawed and then trying to build on it.

5. Deciding IS and Clan are not really going to be balanced for now. Going back tot he Grasshopper vs TW above. If I am making a choice between running the two mechs. I am looking at firpower, range, durability, how pinpoint is the firepower, DPS, agility. Sensors will not be a major concern. Now if you compare them. Lets look. You can get alpha range from both. Range is very important and the TW wins by a long shot. Durbility over all varients is better for the TW. Agility TW wins or at worst is close to even depending on build. DPS can do either way depending on builds. But TW always has a range advantage so wins. So besides having fun or playing something different or for CW why would you take a Grasshopper over a TW? Now look at EVERY IS heavy and the same is true for each one. You are better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog even. You can even jump up to Victors and you are still better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog.

By the way I believe they understand the problem above. I think they know that they are only making IS mechs better short and short mid fighters for now. With the hopes it is balaned enough and sets a baseline. Then later they will get better balance when new IS tech is added. But I think they are underestimating the effects of range etc.

if tbr would run is tech it would still not be balanced, it probably would be even stronger because the IS laser are shorter in rang but cooler. the laservomit would be even stronger. Even more worse. a good pilot will find his Range.

and most hitpoint quirks are just minor if you take the usual alpha ranges some don't even increase your lifetime vs well aimed shots, only vs glance hits.

[Ragnahawk]

I had this idea of adding structure quirks to IS mechs so that the crit chances for weapons exploding would be increased. Armor in the places were they - just make sense. What they probably need to do is play with the duration for all the IS weapons until they find a good balanced comp against Clan, and then specialize the mechs without as much firepower. For instance, there is a commando with ECM that can barely mount 3 SRM4's. My suggestion would to give it SRM2 cooldown and a slight minus on heat gen, that way it can mount SRM2s as well as mounting SRM4's.

Edited by F8Sealed, 12 September 2015 - 01:28 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Lily from animove, on 12 September 2015 - 11:57 AM, said:

if tbr would run is tech it would still not be balanced, it probably would be even stronger because the IS laser are shorter in rang but cooler. the laservomit would be even stronger. Even more worse. a good pilot will find his Range.

and most hitpoint quirks are just minor if you take the usual alpha ranges some don't even increase your lifetime vs well aimed shots, only vs glance hits.

Wow that is so wrong. The Clan weapons are much better than IS weapons. They are the key. Just look at the Clan LPL and ER Medium Combo and tell me the IS versions Combo is better at half the range etc.

[Ragnahawk]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 September 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

Wow that is so wrong. The Clan weapons are much better than IS weapons. They are the key. Just look at the Clan LPL and ER Medium Combo and tell me the IS versions Combo is better at half the range etc.

The problem is the clan mechs are able to assist any other mech because they have at least 500 m unless they run small lasers. So a timber can hit around 4 to 5 mechs at all time, pick off the weaker IS mechs while the IS are driven to fight only what's in front of them.

[Andi Nagasia]

Russ and Paul know their is a Tech Balance Problem, they are Currently working on that right now,
hopefully that will come out as a hot fix into this PTS some time soon, Fingers Crossed,

[Weaselball]

I can agree to the overall gist of what you're saying.

[Lily from animove]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 September 2015 - 01:35 PM, said:

Wow that is so wrong. The Clan weapons are much better than IS weapons. They are the key. Just look at the Clan LPL and ER Medium Combo and tell me the IS versions Combo is better at half the range etc.

you don't use that combo in IS, you do of course use the weapons beign better. again there are IS pilots trying to build clanmechs and failing, because that is of course supposed to happen. Build an IS mech, not a fake clanmech. No map ever requirs you to run around that much exposed in the open. So if youc an't get close enough your and your team just go the wrong route.

[SilentScreamer]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 September 2015 - 11:00 AM, said:

Detailed Feedback On Balance Pass One. - Do you agree let me know.


What is good

1. Making IS mechs more durable is a good idea.

2. Adding sensor differences is a good idea.

3. Nerfing some clan mechs in a way to make them spread out loadouts and use all omnipods is a good idea.

4. Adding more agility as a quirks is a good idea.

5. Not trying to make lights as effective as a heavy is a good idea allthough I do not know if it will work since they are not really played just as scouts.


What whats wrong.

1. Trying to balance without new IS tech is a huge problem. The current weapons and engines were NEVER ment to be balanced with Clan tech. If you add the new IS weapons they have a closer range to Clans so are easier to balance. The Light Fusion Engine is closer to Clan engines and is easier to balance. Not to mention the other missles and ballistics etc. Doing this means you need less Clan negative quirks and less IS positive quirks.

2. OVer estimating how much sensor range is a balance. If you can see something you cans till shoot it. It really mainly effects streaks and LRMs. Although it does give a bit more role warfare in mid and lower tiers.

3. Not understanding how important range is. Look at the Grasshopper and Timber Wolf Quirks. If both mechs were running IS tech they would be balanced but they are not. The TW has about double the range of the Grasshopper for the same type of loadouts. But the 5J get no armor and only agility quirks? And the others get a bit of structure or nothing except torso like the 5P. This same problem is true for all IS mechs unless they are made for short range or can run dual gauss maybe.

Firepower is not just comparing numbers it is comparing range and how pinpoint and how fast it is.

4. Starting with a "baseline" that is flawed and then trying to build on it.

5. Deciding IS and Clan are not really going to be balanced for now. Going back tot he Grasshopper vs TW above. If I am making a choice between running the two mechs. I am looking at firpower, range, durability, how pinpoint is the firepower, DPS, agility. Sensors will not be a major concern. Now if you compare them. Lets look. You can get alpha range from both. Range is very important and the TW wins by a long shot. Durbility over all varients is better for the TW. Agility TW wins or at worst is close to even depending on build. DPS can do either way depending on builds. But TW always has a range advantage so wins. So besides having fun or playing something different or for CW why would you take a Grasshopper over a TW? Now look at EVERY IS heavy and the same is true for each one. You are better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog even. You can even jump up to Victors and you are still better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog.

By the way I believe they understand the problem above. I think they know that they are only making IS mechs better short and short mid fighters for now. With the hopes it is balaned enough and sets a baseline. Then later they will get better balance when new IS tech is added. But I think they are underestimating the effects of range etc.

What is good

1. Making IS mechs more durable is a good idea.
Disagree. Buffs to some IS light mechs like the Spider +20 structure to all locations seem too heavy handed. Spider was my first light mech back in Beta and I stll pilot them. It did not need that big a buff to durability.

2. Adding sensor differences is a good idea.
Agreed.

3. Nerfing some clan mechs in a way to make them spread out loadouts and use all omnipods is a good idea.
This is not just a problem with Clan mechs. Weapon modules and weapon quirks caused all kinds of issues with players "boating" weapons. Some IS mechs are very bad too.

4. Adding more agility as a quirks is a good idea.
Some mechs do deserve these. It is a good way to give them an edge, especially variants that are under performing compared to others in the same chasis and/or weight class.

5. Not trying to make lights as effective as a heavy is a good idea allthough I do not know if it will work since they are not really played just as scouts.
Agreed. Lights should not be able to take the damage or carry the firepower of larger class mechs. That said, there should be variants that excel in combat and others that excel in information warfare.

What is Wrong

1. Trying to balance without new IS tech is a huge problem.
Disagree. If we add more pieces now we'll just have a bigger mess. I am familiar with IS and Clan tech not yet released and I think we're better off without it for now.

2. Over estimating how much sensor range is a balance.
Disagree. +2 second or +3 seconds to have an enemy register on IF, or waiting twice as long to see what parts on an enemy mech are stripped of armor can make a big difference in gameplay. Example: laser vomit mechs are much more effective with a Probe because it tells the pilot where to shoot enemies.

3. Not understanding how important range is.
Disagree. With most weapon range quirks removed engagments should be closer in. Also, many close in specialists are proposed to have negative sensor quirks, they will still deal the same damage, they will just do it less effeciently.

4. Starting with a "baseline" that is flawed and then trying to build on it.
Disagree. From what i've seen Paul has torn down all the Weapon Quirks which had become the baseline over the last year.

5. Deciding IS and Clan are not really going to be balanced for now
Disagree. Match apples to apples first, then figure out what to do with the oranges.

[XX Sulla XX]

Lily from animove, on 12 September 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

you don't use that combo in IS, you do of course use the weapons beign better. again there are IS pilots trying to build clanmechs and failing, because that is of course supposed to happen. Build an IS mech, not a fake clanmech. No map ever requirs you to run around that much exposed in the open. So if youc an't get close enough your and your team just go the wrong route.

And what do I put on my Grasshopper say to make it better than a TW?

Quote

1. Making IS mechs more durable is a good idea.
Disagree. Buffs to some IS light mechs like the Spider +20 structure to all locations seem too heavy handed. Spider was my first light mech back in Beta and I stll pilot them. It did not need that big a buff to durability.

Yes not EVERY quirk is perfect but the over all idea is fine.

Quote

3. Nerfing some clan mechs in a way to make them spread out loadouts and use all omnipods is a good idea.
This is not just a problem with Clan mechs. Weapon modules and weapon quirks caused all kinds of issues with players "boating" weapons. Some IS mechs are very bad too.

Its mainly a problem because of clan omni pods.

Quote

1. Trying to balance without new IS tech is a huge problem.
Disagree. If we add more pieces now we'll just have a bigger mess. I am familiar with IS and Clan tech not yet released and I think we're better off without it for now.

No its a more basic problem. They are trying to balance a Fort Pinto and a Ferrari. But the could be balancing a Ferrari and a Ford GT. And that would make a lot more sense

Quote

2. Over estimating how much sensor range is a balance.
Disagree. +2 second or +3 seconds to have an enemy register on IF, or waiting twice as long to see what parts on an enemy mech are stripped of armor can make a big difference in gameplay. Example: laser vomit mechs are much more effective with a Probe because it tells the pilot where to shoot enemies.

Not that big of a deal if your unit mates all are shooting at the same arm say.

Quote

3. Not understanding how important range is.
Disagree. With most weapon range quirks removed engagments should be closer in. Also, many close in specialists are proposed to have negative sensor quirks, they will still deal the same damage, they will just do it less effeciently.

Clans just have better range. They are doing a huge amount of damage to IS mechs trying to get close to them. Play a good Unit with clan mechs with gauss and LPLs and ER medium lasers and see what happens with short range builds the vast majority of the time.

Quote

4. Starting with a "baseline" that is flawed and then trying to build on it.
Disagree. From what i've seen Paul has torn down all the Weapon Quirks which had become the baseline over the last year.

The problem is the current IS weapons are not a smart baseline against current Clan weapons.

Quote

5. Deciding IS and Clan are not really going to be balanced for now
Disagree. Match apples to apples first, then figure out what to do with the oranges.

The apples were not bad before the clan oranges came along and unbalanced the game just like in TT.

[Phlinger]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 September 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

And what do I put on my Grasshopper say to make it better than a TW?

Yes not EVERY quirk is perfect but the over all idea is fine.

Its mainly a problem because of clan omni pods.

No its a more basic problem. They are trying to balance a Fort Pinto and a Ferrari. But the could be balancing a Ferrari and a Ford GT. And that would make a lot more sense

Not that big of a deal if your unit mates all are shooting at the same arm say.

Clans just have better range. They are doing a huge amount of damage to IS mechs trying to get close to them. Play a good Unit with clan mechs with gauss and LPLs and ER medium lasers and see what happens with short range builds the vast majority of the time.

The problem is the current IS weapons are not a smart baseline against current Clan weapons.

The apples were not bad before the clan oranges came along and unbalanced the game just like in TT.

The goal isn't to make your Grasshopper BETTER than a Timber, just to give it a 50/50 chance. I think many people here have forgotten what Balance actually is.

[Wildstreak]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 September 2015 - 11:00 AM, said:

3. Not understanding how important range is. Look at the Grasshopper and Timber Wolf Quirks. If both mechs were running IS tech they would be balanced but they are not. The TW has about double the range of the Grasshopper for the same type of loadouts. But the 5J get no armor and only agility quirks? And the others get a bit of structure or nothing except torso like the 5P. This same problem is true for all IS mechs unless they are made for short range or can run dual gauss maybe.

Firepower is not just comparing numbers it is comparing range and how pinpoint and how fast it is.

4. Starting with a "baseline" that is flawed and then trying to build on it.

5. Deciding IS and Clan are not really going to be balanced for now. Going back tot he Grasshopper vs TW above. If I am making a choice between running the two mechs. I am looking at firpower, range, durability, how pinpoint is the firepower, DPS, agility. Sensors will not be a major concern. Now if you compare them. Lets look. You can get alpha range from both. Range is very important and the TW wins by a long shot. Durbility over all varients is better for the TW. Agility TW wins or at worst is close to even depending on build. DPS can do either way depending on builds. But TW always has a range advantage so wins. So besides having fun or playing something different or for CW why would you take a Grasshopper over a TW? Now look at EVERY IS heavy and the same is true for each one. You are better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog even. You can even jump up to Victors and you are still better off taking a TW or Hellbringer or Mad Dog.

Comparing Grasshopper to Timber Wolf is wrong.

Grasshopper is meant to be a mobile Mech, not an armored tough guy stand up brawler. Quirks should reflect that. Grasshopper should also be compared to its weight, the Summoner.

Same with Timber Wolf, compare it to its weight, Orion and later this month Black Knight. Timber Wolf is a generic Mech whose role is decided by pods, weapons and equipment used like a lot if not all OmniMechs. Being generic is why you find Clan Mechs cheap in the discount generic section of the supermarket.

Cannot compare them due to tonnage difference and the more role focus of the IS Mech.

If you want a ranged tough guy stand up Mech, you do NOT bring a Grasshopper and do NOT change it to one.

Seems you are assuming things about something that is not even going live, it is going on the Test Server first.

[XX Sulla XX]

Ronyn, on 12 September 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

The goal isn't to make your Grasshopper BETTER than a Timber, just to give it a 50/50 chance. I think many people here have forgotten what Balance actually is.

I was refering to this "you don't use that combo in IS, you do of course use the weapons beign better.". So what weapons make a Grasshopper as good as a TW. Shoot I would be happy making it almost as good as a TW.

Wildstreak, on 12 September 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

Comparing Grasshopper to Timber Wolf is wrong.

Grasshopper is meant to be a mobile Mech, not an armored tough guy stand up brawler. Quirks should reflect that. Grasshopper should also be compared to its weight, the Summoner.

Same with Timber Wolf, compare it to its weight, Orion and later this month Black Knight. Timber Wolf is a generic Mech whose role is decided by pods, weapons and equipment used like a lot if not all OmniMechs. Being generic is why you find Clan Mechs cheap in the discount generic section of the supermarket.

Cannot compare them due to tonnage difference and the more role focus of the IS Mech.

If you want a ranged tough guy stand up Mech, you do NOT bring a Grasshopper and do NOT change it to one.

Seems you are assuming things about something that is not even going live, it is going on the Test Server first.

OK let me make it simple. What can the Grasshopper do better or as good as a TW? As a side note TT lore roles are not really important in MWO. But mechs do have to have some role they do well or there is no reason to use them.

[Skarlock]

XX Sulla XX, on 12 September 2015 - 11:00 AM, said:

5. Not trying to make lights as effective as a heavy is a good idea allthough I do not know if it will work since they are not really played just as scouts.

I agree with almost all of your statements, but I have a big issue with this one. ALL mechs should be effective. No one wants to play the mech who's primary function is to hit the R key so that the rest of their team can shoot it and make it die, and who's contributions to the game in every other way shape and form aren't significant. By the same token, no one wants to play a huge punching bag that soaks up a ton of fire and does nothing significant in terms of kills and damage, and for most of the match gets ignored because their offensive potential is limited, and you can afford to let them survive till the end of the match and simply clean up.

All mechs should primarily be killers, with a secondary role they also fill. Whether that's providing ECM, countering the other teams ECM, long range support, short range support, scouting, point capping, flanking, brawling, tanking, whatever, they should all have a significant degree of punch.

[XX Sulla XX]

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

I agree with almost all of your statements, but I have a big issue with this one. ALL mechs should be effective. No one wants to play the mech who's primary function is to hit the R key so that the rest of their team can shoot it and make it die, and who's contributions to the game in every other way shape and form aren't significant. By the same token, no one wants to play a huge punching bag that soaks up a ton of fire and does nothing significant in terms of kills and damage, and for most of the match gets ignored because their offensive potential is limited, and you can afford to let them survive till the end of the match and simply clean up.

All mechs should primarily be killers, with a secondary role they also fill. Whether that's providing ECM, countering the other teams ECM, long range support, short range support, scouting, point capping, flanking, brawling, tanking, whatever, they should all have a significant degree of punch.

No see over all I agree with you. That is how mechs are played. It is how I tend to play lights. And its how I believe all of the top tier player and units tend to play lights. Yes they get some info but they need to be effective in combat. But there are lots of players that want a more lore based game. Although really that works better when we get PVE. I think the lore/TT players will tend to play PVE when we get it a lot.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 12 September 2015 - 04:24 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

3. Not understanding how important range is. Look at the Grasshopper and Timber Wolf Quirks. If both mechs were running IS tech they would be balanced but they are not. The TW has about double the range of the Grasshopper for the same type of loadouts. But the 5J get no armor and only agility quirks? And the others get a bit of structure or nothing except torso like the 5P. This same problem is true for all IS mechs unless they are made for short range or can run dual gauss maybe.

Firepower is not just comparing numbers it is comparing range and how pinpoint and how fast it is.

Need to add one other thing, imho. Hard point location. Low slung arm-mounted weapons and lower set torso weapons means a humanoid mech takes longer and has to expose more of itself before it can fire its full payload. Arms should be able to rise higher than a mech's waist. Currently chicken walkers have the "upper hand" on that.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 12 September 2015 - 04:41 PM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Tarl Cabot, on 12 September 2015 - 04:35 PM, said:

Need to add one other thing, imho. Hard point location. Low slung arm-mounted weapons and lower set torso weapons means a humanoid mech takes longer and has to expose more of itself before it can fire its full payload. Arms should be able to rise higher than a mech's waist. Currently chicken walkers have the "upper hand" on that.

Well they did say that was part of the balance. An example is look at Grasshopper quirks or Victor quirks.

[Cementi]

Ok people chill out and relax. Its the first look and they are looking for feedback. For me that makes me optimistic but that might be because removing offensive quirks and doing things to the sensors is something I have been saying for a bit. I know I am not the only one but regardless it makes me feel that they are listening. Maybe I am delusional.

Obviously there are kinks to be worked out, I noticed some of the clan mechs even still had weapon quirks. I chalked it up to being the first patch and things got missed. Nothing to stress over.

One of the big things I think people are missing is the value of the target aquisition delay quirk. You can say it does not matter that it takes you a second or even a few to get a red box to shoot at a mech because you can just shoot center mass and do not need the paper doll. In pub land you are right......now look at a group where the drop leader calls you to target Timberwolf Golf. You turn target the Timberwolf in front of you and fire.....then the info comes up and you realize you (and half the people on your team) just unloaded on Timberwolf Alpha while the other half shot Timberwolf Golf. Focus fire will become a bit more challenging. Im sure it will not be a huge deal but it will be noticeable. Also no flipping super fast through targets so just getting to a timberwolf with no promise of it being the right one is going to be an issue.

Second, target retention time for all you LRM lovers out there. There are a few mechs that often were LRM type mechs that get +3 or even +6 to that value. If you get your own lock on a target and it runs behind a hill that is a huge amount of time to at least get one volley on them. More if you also have the advanced target decay module. Obviously radar Derp will instantly negate this feature.....which is why I think radar derp should be reduced to a % reduction instant of you instanly lose lock. Soft counters only please.

Also I am seeing alot of rage about the clan having good scan values or agility values. Keep in mind they get virtually no structure buffs and the thing that everyone seems to miss.....clan geometry on average is way bulkier than IS making targeting key components much easier on most mechs. On top of that clan mechs require increased face time to do their damage with longer burn lasers, volley fire AC's and stream fire LRM's.

I am not saying the balance is perfect. I am saying this is a good first step. It gives them a baseline to work with. A clean slate if you will to make the changes they need to and best of all, no one is pigeon holed into specific builds.

I loved the idea of quirks. When they came out I was stoked and thought it was the answer. Then as I got playing I started to see some flaws. The more they adjusted the more those flaws came to the surface as the power creep began. People started throwing around conspiracy theories about buff debuffs to make people buy mechs. All I ever saw was them trying to balance the game but without taking away the goodies they gave us because they knew we the players would likely throw a fit.

The real problem with the old quirk system was that most of the underperformers underperformed because of geometry. Either the hard points were not optimially located or the hit locations were to big making the mech vulnerable. So they gave them structure buffs. Then to answer the poor hardpoint options they gave weapon quirks.....that negated the structure buffs they gave out. Now instead of a level playing field they had a new meta. Yes there will always be a meta, but ideally it will not be far and away the best.

This new system is going in the right direction. It needs our feedback which for me at this point is give us a new patch on it to catch the obvious misses. Ie weapon quirks that got missed and some of the more silly stacking omni pod options.

My suggestion for clan mechs is like other have said tie the quirks directly to the CT. As omnipods are added they debuff those values. The more hardpoints you stack on the more those CT buffs get reduced to the point that they can even go negative. No omnipod should give a positive. Simply a lesser debuff if a less optimal option is selected. To reduce boating.

I also think that Radar Depravation should be a % based not instant so as to not completely negate those mechs that have target aquisition buffs. Reduce not remove should be how almost everything works.

Now as this is a first pass I do expect them to go back to weapon based quirks once they have the rest balanced. However I personally would prefer to see the following suggestion in either a skill tree format or weapon module format. It could potentially work for quirks but then you could get back to some of the past problems pigeon holing mechs into certain loadouts.

Figure out a max value, ie a 30% reduction in heat for energy weapons that you can equip but the value has diminished returns. For each energy hardpoint a mech has the value is lowered. So for a mech that has a single energy hardpoint it reduces heat by 30% so if you slap an ER PPC in that spot it has it's heat reduced from 15 to 10.5. Reduce it by say 3% per energy hard point past the first so that a mech with 8 small pulse lasers with the same module would only get a 9% reduction in heat from 16 to 14.56. Still a buff but much less considering that the ER PPC hits for 10 damage and the 8 small pulse hits for 32. Ideally I would like to see this tied to how many hardpoints a mech is using and not how many they have so that you have the option of running less weapons, you are not obligated to fill up all the slots. These numbers are somewhat arbitrary and I need sleep so there are probally holes in them

This system could be used for a host of other things as well that the old quirk system used. Cooldown, Range, Spread, Jam Chance, Velocity. However before anything like this stuff can be done they need a good baseline. I think they have began well on this pass we just need to be patient. The key I think is when they do go to do this is give the choice to the players but give it some limitation. I hate diminished returns in many games but I think for this it could work so long as it is not overdone.