21 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

Did someone mention that there were no more weapon quirks? did russ say something in the town hall? because it seems to me, they are testing the idea of info warfare, and testing movement and structure/armor buffs..

It would make perfect sense to remove all weapon buffs, and see how this effects mech performance, and data mine the test server, then add the weapon bonuses.. (though i think i did see something about no more super quirks) But i think this makes a lotta sense.

Get your base lines, improve mechs through other means besides weapons, Then make small tweaks to weapons to boost them further.

Maybe i'm wrong, But it seams entirely in the realm of possibilities.


So far from what i have noticed, they are going to heavy on structure, and not enough on armor for my tastes. I wouldn't mind some mechs getting pretty large armor bonuses to help make the mechs much tankier,. HBK, centurion, Quickdraw, t-bolt, cataphract, highlander, atlas all seam like good choices To get some nice armor bonuses.

I'm really hoping this re-balance can bring a bit more Brawling, and move a bit away from the whole peak and poke alpha crap. Maybe movement and armor are steps in the right direction for this.

Perhaps lengthening the cool downs on longer range weapons would also help. Get out DPS'd by double up close would be a big reason to have to bring shorter ranged weapons verse more often than not people just load up large lasers or a gauss ect with little drawbacks, take for example the stalker 4N. Longer recharge times could give a reason to use those 2 missile hard points.

I am looking forward to trying out the new stuff for sure. I just hope in the end it takes things in a good direction.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Yeah, and I think there is room for reasonable armor quirks for all mechs in relation to current weapon values.

[Mystere]

Some want weapons done first and foremost. I disagree. They do not have to be. If you want to test durability, it does not matter much what weapons hit Mechs as long as they are hit with a wide variety, and then analyze those.

It's the same for sensors and movement.

Then do weapons.

Then rinse and repeat.

At least that is my opinion anyway.

Edited by Mystere, 12 September 2015 - 09:29 PM.

[JC Daxion]

I was just listening to the town hall, and at around the 20 min mark, maybe a tad sooner.. He confirms that everything we know about Quirks, and names Unique weapons quirks, and general weapons quirks are in this update..

So it is pretty much as i suspected, Tweak the movement/sensor stuff first, then add weapons. So it seams like they are going to come back, I just think not to the degree that they were, to the whole Super quirk aspects.

to me this is a good thing. Make the variants play different to even start with, then boost power accordingly. This could really make things interesting.

[oldradagast]

Mystere, on 12 September 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

Some want weapons done first and foremost. I disagree. They do not have to be. If you want to test durability, it does not matter much what weapons hit Mechs as long as they are hit with a wide variety, and then analyze those.

It's the same for sensors and movement.

Then do weapons.

Then rinse and repeat.

At least that is my opinion anyway.

Disagree. How do you tell if an IS mech is durable enough when it gets blown away in seconds by a Clan mech?

Is that short TTK because the IS mech needs structural / armor buffs, or because the Clan mech needs DPS nerfs, or because the IS mech needs DPS buffs so it has a chance to kill the Clan mech, thus being "durable enough" to win a fight?

You simply cannot tell, making this phase of the testing - durability without damage balance - utterly worthless.

Now, if the only goal was to check for hit registration, component damage, etc, then, yes, I'd agree with you. And, quite frankly, they still need to look into that - why do my PPC's explode when they get close to terrain but need super perfect aim to squarely hit a mech? But for actual balance testing, what they did was worthless.

[Mogney]

Russ tweeted last night that weapon quirks are likely not gone.

[Tarl Cabot]

When was the first weapon quirks introduced, not including modules?

XX-XXX-XXXX introduced quirks

17-JUN-2014 Clan Release - pre-order release

19-JUL-2014 Converted all existing IS mechs to new quirk system

05-SEP-2014 Clan/IS weapon changes

04-NOV-2014 IS Weapon Major Quirks pass

09-DEC-2014 1st Quirk Update (Major changes in weapon quirks, espT-bolt 9S:ERPPC /Dragons /Grid

Iron Gauss Rifle additions)

11-DEC-2014 CW

19-MAY-2015 Another quirk pass

Sept-2015 PTS Sensor/Info Warefare (possible initial loss of IS weapon quirks)

[FupDup]

If by any chance weapon quirks come back, I expect them to be very crappy ones that don't make a difference. The most recently released mechs in the live server are good examples of what to expect. Things like 12.5 missile cooldown or 7.5% LB-X spread, for example, are entirely worthless.

[Sarlic]

FupDup, on 14 September 2015 - 06:12 AM, said:

If by any chance weapon quirks come back, I expect them to be very crappy ones that don't make a difference. The most recently released mechs in the live server are good examples of what to expect. Things like 12.5 missile cooldown or 7.5% LB-X spread, for example, are entirely worthless.

Because 50% quirks makes sense?

Edited by Sarlic, 14 September 2015 - 06:21 AM.

[FupDup]

Sarlic, on 14 September 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

Becaue 50% quirks makes sense?

Well, do 50% or higher structure or agility quirks make sense?

There are some of those, like +100% structure on a Mist Lynx's arm on the live server. The PTS has equally huge agility and structure quirks all over the place, or sometimes even higher (i.e. I've seen some mechs with +80% acceleration, was it the Commando TDK?).

[Sarlic]

FupDup, on 14 September 2015 - 06:22 AM, said:

Well, do 50% or higher structure or agility quirks make sense?

There are some of those, like +100% structure on a Mist Lynx's arm on the live server. The PTS has equally huge agility and structure quirks all over the place, or sometimes even higher (i.e. I've seen some mechs with +80% acceleration, was it the Commando TDK?).

Stop leaning on quirks so much. That would be start.

I mean the video from Sean Lang pretty much explained why they would remove excessive quirks.

[FupDup]

Sarlic, on 14 September 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

Stop leaning on quirks so much. That would be start.

I mean the video from Sean Lang pretty much explained why they would remove excessive quirks.

They removed "excessive" weapon quirks, but then have extremely high durability and mobility quirks in their place. Huge values are still huge values, they just moved those huge values to a different aspect of a mech than before.

Question: Where do you draw the line for quirks? As in, what do you think the highest durability and agility quirks (or sensors for that matter) should ever be?

[Lily from animove]

Sarlic, on 14 September 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

Because 50% quirks makes sense?

yes, on a mech having only 20% firepower of another, 50% made sense and was even too low. Bad was giving 50% quirks to mechs with only 20% less firepower. This flipped the table to nonsense. And it killed diversity on that mech at the moment where those quirks ere bound to specific weapons.

The matter of value was a of relation which the mechs had to each other.

Edited by Lily from animove, 14 September 2015 - 06:56 AM.

[Mystere]

oldradagast, on 14 September 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

Disagree. How do you tell if an IS mech is durable enough when it gets blown away in seconds by a Clan mech?

Then why are so many people complaining about the lack of IS weapon quirks? What purpose would IS quirks serve if what you want to measure is how fast an IS Mech "gets blown away in seconds by a Clan mech"?. It does not compute at all.

oldradagast, on 14 September 2015 - 03:27 AM, said:

Is that short TTK because the IS mech needs structural / armor buffs, or because the Clan mech needs DPS nerfs, or because the IS mech needs DPS buffs so it has a chance to kill the Clan mech, thus being "durable enough" to win a fight?

You simply cannot tell, making this phase of the testing - durability without damage balance - utterly worthless.

Now, if the only goal was to check for hit registration, component damage, etc, then, yes, I'd agree with you. And, quite frankly, they still need to look into that - why do my PPC's explode when they get close to terrain but need super perfect aim to squarely hit a mech? But for actual balance testing, what they did was worthless.

This very first phase of the test could very well be what we call "setting up initial conditions". One of these "initial conditions", I am assuming, is to set weapons to their unquirked values. They may be doing this so they can establish a baseline for all 4 pillars. If that is indeed the case, I have no problem with it.

Again, this is all just speculation of course given that PGI has not given anyone details of their test plan. For all we know, they are also measuring the other stuff you mentioned (e.g. hit registration).

But to say that their choice of ordering is useless, i really beg to disagree.

Edited by Mystere, 14 September 2015 - 07:15 AM.

[DivineEvil]

IS need double structure. Clans need violently reduced base heat capacity, or no base heat capacity with true DHS values. It might get teh balance, TTK and high-alpha meta where it should be.

Refer to the thread I've recently made here for details.

[Tarl Cabot]

DivineEvil, on 14 September 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

IS need double structure. Clans need violently reduced base heat capacity, or no base heat capacity with true DHS values. It might get teh balance, TTK and high-alpha meta where it should be.

Refer to the thread I've recently made here for details.

Internal structure has already been doubled for all mechs.

[DivineEvil]

Tarl Cabot, on 14 September 2015 - 07:36 PM, said:

Internal structure has already been doubled for all mechs.

Nope. It wasnt. Structure is half of mech' maximum armor across the board. If you have maximum armor on you Arm of 32, the internal structure of that Arm is 16. That is because TT has equal Armor and structure, and PGI has doubled armor. Only exclusion is Head, which has 15 internal structure to avoid instant alpha-headshots with full armor.

Edited by DivineEvil, 14 September 2015 - 08:05 PM.

[FupDup]

DivineEvil, on 14 September 2015 - 08:04 PM, said:

Nope. It wasnt. Structure is half of mech' maximum armor across the board. If you have maximum armor on you Arm of 32, the internal structure of that Arm is 16. That is because TT has equal Armor and structure, and PGI has doubled armor.

PGI doubled both structure and armor. You can use programs like SSW to check the internal values on TT mechs, then compare it to Smurfys mechs. For example, an MWO Hunchie has 16 arm structure, but in TT it only has 8.

[DivineEvil]

FupDup, on 14 September 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

PGI doubled both structure and armor. You can use programs like SSW to check the internal values on TT mechs, then compare it to Smurfys mechs. For example, an MWO Hunchie has 16 arm structure, but in TT it only has 8.

So wait, in TT internal structure is half of the armor by default? That's disturbing...

Nevertheless, weapon cooldowns went even beyond 2.5 multiplier, with exception of 4-6 tubed Clan Streaks, which defeated the whole idea. Aimed firing doesnt helps either. My statement still stands. There's no point addressing the values, that makes Clan mechs stronger. There is a point to address the values, that Clans and IS are equal on, and skew them in Inner Sphere's favor. Then balance is reachable and diversity is maintained.

[oldradagast]

Mystere, on 14 September 2015 - 07:01 AM, said:

Then why are so many people complaining about the lack of IS weapon quirks? What purpose would IS quirks serve if what you want to measure is how fast an IS Mech "gets blown away in seconds by a Clan mech"?. It does not compute at all.

This very first phase of the test could very well be what we call "setting up initial conditions". One of these "initial conditions", I am assuming, is to set weapons to their unquirked values. They may be doing this so they can establish a baseline for all 4 pillars. If that is indeed the case, I have no problem with it.

Again, this is all just speculation of course given that PGI has not given anyone details of their test plan. For all we know, they are also measuring the other stuff you mentioned (e.g. hit registration).

But to say that their choice of ordering is useless, i really beg to disagree.

Eh, it could be many things, but it's not likely to be what they are calling it.

If they have so little faith in their code at this point that they need to strip away all weapon balance attempts and check to see if weapons actually deal the damage listed - which is about the only "balance" one can get between Clans and IS based on the PTS data - well, let's just say that doesn't fill me with anymore confidence then the alternative; that they think that they can balance mechs piecemeal without the whole system being in place.

You're willing to give them far more leeway at this point than I am.

Edited by oldradagast, 15 September 2015 - 03:04 AM.