24 replies to this topic

[sycocys]

Been holding on to the alternate/non-prime variants of the mechs I've got fully master because I thought they might be doing at least a minimal something about making them different CT to CT.

Anyone heard if they are or not? Not in any major rush to sell the extras off, but just looking at the few IS mechs I don't have or haven't mastered up and thinking about all these mechbays that are essentially duplicate mechs sitting around that could be used for slightly more interesting Trebs, Kintaros and if I really wanted to torture myself, Spiders and Locusts.

[Monkey Lover]

Test servers had this , we can only guess they will keep it around. I sold all but the primes on my clan mechs , I might end up buying a few back ha-ha.

[El Bandito]

sycocys, on 31 October 2015 - 06:50 AM, said:

Been holding on to the alternate/non-prime variants of the mechs I've got fully master because I thought they might be doing at least a minimal something about making them different CT to CT.

Anyone heard if they are or not? Not in any major rush to sell the extras off, but just looking at the few IS mechs I don't have or haven't mastered up and thinking about all these mechbays that are essentially duplicate mechs sitting around that could be used for slightly more interesting Trebs, Kintaros and if I really wanted to torture myself, Spiders and Locusts.

It seems omnipods affect the PTS quirks than the CT itself. Mechs such as the EBJ-A got heavy penalty, not because of its CT negative quirkes, but because of its high mounted ST pods' negative quirks. I would sell off duplicate CT omnimechs.

Let's hear what others have to say.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 October 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[sycocys]

Normally I wouldn't consider selling them, but they are all the same other than the occasional 1 CT hardpoint.

That's the one big thing I prefer about the IS mechs, even the bad ones have their own individual character.

[Lightfoot]

El Bandito, on 31 October 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

It seems omnipods affect the PTS quirks than the CT itself. Mechs such as the EBJ-A got heavy penalty, not because of its CT negative quirkes, but because of its high mounted ST pods' negative quirks. I would sell off duplicate CT omnimechs.

Let's hear what others have to say.

EBJ has a giant CT already, if they gave it a lot of negative quirks it's junk. I already don't use it anymore because it gets cored so fast. I suppose if they changed the CT base between the legs into left and right leg hit boxes it would be ok. I never thought the EBJ was over-powered unless you compare it to the Summoner which PGI has never fixed and I bet they haven't any plans to ever do so.

[Troutmonkey]

Is there any reason what they can't give different Clan torso different engine sizes? Even if it's just +- 10 rating?

[Lostdragon]

I don't understand why they don't put all the quirks on the CT to prevent absurd quirk stacking and make the variants matter.

[sycocys]

Because that would make the most sense?

[Cyborne Elemental]

Lightfoot, on 01 November 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

EBJ has a giant CT already, if they gave it a lot of negative quirks it's junk. I already don't use it anymore because it gets cored so fast. I suppose if they changed the CT base between the legs into left and right leg hit boxes it would be ok. I never thought the EBJ was over-powered unless you compare it to the Summoner which PGI has never fixed and I bet they haven't any plans to ever do so.

Its funny about Ebonjag though.

Play in pubs, and its nonstop cored instagibbed over and over.

Drop in CW, and its torso/Legs.

At least that was my experience with it alot.

[sycocys]

Unless something has changed in CW since I last played it, the prime directive was to leg everything Clan because they have far less armor there to deal with and can't get your OGENs if they can't move.

[DivineEvil]

It is very probable that they will differentiate them. Prior to rebalance they didn't had much foundation to make such additions.

It's only hoped for they'll figure out the way to balance IS/Clans somehow to that date, otherwise all the quirks are going to be negative for the more popular mechs.

[Lightfoot]

Mister D, on 02 November 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

Its funny about Ebonjag though.

Play in pubs, and its nonstop cored instagibbed over and over.

Drop in CW, and its torso/Legs.

At least that was my experience with it alot.

I think in CW they expect you to torso-twist a lot so they just focus-fire on the legs. However, I have observed that the Legs don't shoot back. Dirty Leggers, but you make them pay in full usually.

[Lightfoot]

sycocys, on 02 November 2015 - 03:45 AM, said:

Unless something has changed in CW since I last played it, the prime directive was to leg everything Clan because they have far less armor there to deal with and can't get your OGENs if they can't move.

I am looking forward to the changes Russ was talking about in CW and I hope that includes other gametypes besides attack the orbital gun. The only way to not have the map determining the winner is to have a common objective for the two teams like both teams have to capture and hold a Mech Factory, etc. The attack/defend game always ends up in who can spawn camp the best. If PGI would stop nerfing all the long range weapons but lasers the attack/defend might work better.

I don't think the CT's of omnimechs will be given any special quirks. That would be interesting, like select-a-quirk, but that's why it won't happen.

Edited by Lightfoot, 02 November 2015 - 04:07 AM.

[Paigan]

Lostdragon, on 01 November 2015 - 07:17 PM, said:

I don't understand why they don't put all the quirks on the CT to prevent absurd quirk stacking and make the variants matter.

Because of intra-pod balance.

A arm with 1 E has to have some advantage over an arm with 6E or 4E 1B or whatever.
For example on a WHK, you have to decide if you want 2E and -4% heat (yes, it matters) or 2E 1M.
If you want another missile hardpoint, you have to give up the heat bonus.
Or the other way around: if you restrain your build to fewer hardpoints, you can get a nice little bonus elsewhere.

That is very nice from both a balancing perspective and an engineering perspective.

You can see the pods as having "items". An "item" can be either a hardpoint or a small bonus.

sycocys, on 02 November 2015 - 02:52 AM, said:

Because that would make the most sense?

You see: people tend to ignore the full complexity of reality and prematurely flame those who deal with that complexity as being dumb or illogical or whatever.
If those in charge would jump on any premature demand, the SAME people demanding it would afterwards again flame them for not considering all aspects.

Or as the google CIO once said in a tech talk: You can NEVER do what customers demand, because they don't have the full picture and mostly suggest nonsense. Customers can only point you towards problems and then you (the developer) have to come up with a solution that covers all aspects.

You can go ahead and flame google now for being dumb, but I'd say they must do a lot of things right, given their success.

Edited by Paigan, 02 November 2015 - 04:23 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Paigan, on 02 November 2015 - 04:18 AM, said:

Because of intra-pod balance.

A arm with 1 E has to have some advantage over an arm with 6E or 4E 1B or whatever.
For example on a WHK, you have to decide if you want 2E and -4% heat (yes, it matters) or 2E 1M.
If you want another missile hardpoint, you have to give up the heat bonus.
Or the other way around: if you restrain your build to fewer hardpoints, you can get a nice little bonus elsewhere.

That is very nice from both a balancing perspective and an engineering perspective.

You can see the pods as having "items". An "item" can be either a hardpoint or a small bonus.




You see: people tend to ignore the full complexity of reality and prematurely flame those who deal with that complexity as being dumb or illogical or whatever.
If those in charge would jump on any premature demand, the SAME people demanding it would afterwards again flame them for not considering all aspects.

Or as the google CIO once said in a tech talk: You can NEVER do what customers demand, because they don't have the full picture and mostly suggest nonsense. Customers can only point you towards problems and then you (the developer) have to come up with a solution that covers all aspects.

You can go ahead and flame google now for being dumb, but I'd say they must do a lot of things right, given their success.

So google plus and CW are the same, crap.

[Paigan]

Bobzilla, on 02 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

So google plus and CW are the same, crap.

If google only consisted of google plus (AND IF that CIO guy would be significantly in charge of google plus) AND IF CW would be the same thing as pod quirks, your answer would be relevant.

In other words: [I don't agree]?!

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 02 November 2015 - 04:46 PM.
Language

[Lostdragon]

Paigan, on 02 November 2015 - 04:18 AM, said:

Because of intra-pod balance.

A arm with 1 E has to have some advantage over an arm with 6E or 4E 1B or whatever.
For example on a WHK, you have to decide if you want 2E and -4% heat (yes, it matters) or 2E 1M.
If you want another missile hardpoint, you have to give up the heat bonus.
Or the other way around: if you restrain your build to fewer hardpoints, you can get a nice little bonus elsewhere.

That is very nice from both a balancing perspective and an engineering perspective.

You can see the pods as having "items". An "item" can be either a hardpoint or a small bonus.




You see: people tend to ignore the full complexity of reality and prematurely flame those who deal with that complexity as being dumb or illogical or whatever.
If those in charge would jump on any premature demand, the SAME people demanding it would afterwards again flame them for not considering all aspects.

Or as the google CIO once said in a tech talk: You can NEVER do what customers demand, because they don't have the full picture and mostly suggest nonsense. Customers can only point you towards problems and then you (the developer) have to come up with a solution that covers all aspects.

You can go ahead and flame google now for being dumb, but I'd say they must do a lot of things right, given their success.

The problem with that is it makes the CTs that don't have a hardpoints irrelevant and you are limited in the quirks you can apply to omnipods due to how they mix and match. Putting all the positive quirks on the CT eliminates quirk stacking, and leaving negative quirks on individual pods serves keep alpha monsters somewhat in line.

Right now because of how quirks work there is almost no variation between variants on Clan mechs unless they have a CT hardpoint. Putting the quirks on the CT would help differentiate the Clan variants while still allowing a lot of flexibility due to omnipods.

[Paigan]

Lostdragon, on 02 November 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

The problem with that is it makes the CTs that don't have a hardpoints irrelevant and you are limited in the quirks you can apply to omnipods due to how they mix and match. Putting all the positive quirks on the CT eliminates quirk stacking, and leaving negative quirks on individual pods serves keep alpha monsters somewhat in line.

Right now because of how quirks work there is almost no variation between variants on Clan mechs unless they have a CT hardpoint. Putting the quirks on the CT would help differentiate the Clan variants while still allowing a lot of flexibility due to omnipods.

I agree 100% to the logic. However it does not quite apply.
CTs DO have differences in them.
E.g. WHK and SHC CTs differ in adding acceleration or agility bonuses.
Admitted, the differences are small, but in principle, they are there.

Also, keep in mind that there was an "iterative quirk overhaul" attempt with those micro quirks as only a first iteration with more to come. Sadly (or luckily), PGI aborted that attempt and switched to a complete rebalance.

I would agree that CTs need bigger differences between them.
But that doesn't mean that pods all of a sudden should have no advantages&disadvantages (quirks) between them, because that would kill intra-pod balance.

Bot things are not mutually exclusive. You could have, say, 30% of the quirks on the CT and 70% distributed among the pods. Or 50-50 or whatever.

Edited by Paigan, 02 November 2015 - 08:31 AM.

[LORD ORION]

Lostdragon, on 02 November 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

The problem with that is it makes the CTs that don't have a hardpoints irrelevant and you are limited in the quirks you can apply to omnipods due to how they mix and match. Putting all the positive quirks on the CT eliminates quirk stacking, and leaving negative quirks on individual pods serves keep alpha monsters somewhat in line.

Right now because of how quirks work there is almost no variation between variants on Clan mechs unless they have a CT hardpoint. Putting the quirks on the CT would help differentiate the Clan variants while still allowing a lot of flexibility due to omnipods.

Putting quikrs on torsos means you will never see most variants, because there will be one that is always better.

[sycocys]

Well that's really the problem for me with having all the quirks on the pods - why would I want to keep more than just the one mech (or 2 if I was playing CW clan side)?

There's just no actual point to it since I can just make whatever buffs/debuffs I want or like on any of the mechs. I get the mix/match system but without making the CTs something unique (even just in a minor way) the mechs have no character to me and only hold my interest for as long as it takes to master their xp tree, if that long.