19 replies to this topic

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

PGI, you must give a mech chassis equal armor and structure quirks across all variants, or at least keep them relatively close. Example :

The Griffin 3M has +8 armor for whole body and +11 structure for whole body. The rest of the Griffin's dont. Every single player in this game who owns Griffin's will always pick the Griffin 3M, and let the rest sit and collect dust in the garage.

Please normalize armor and structure quirks across the mech chassis then differentiate them with weapon quirks/infotech/maneuverability. Thanks and have a nice day.

Edited by Alwrath, 04 November 2015 - 05:58 PM.

[TexAce]

Alwrath, on 04 November 2015 - 05:52 PM, said:

PGI, you must give a mech chassis equal armor and structure quirks across all variants. Example :

The Griffin 3M has +8 armor for whole body and +11 structure for whole body. The rest of the Griffin's dont. Every single player in this game who owns Griffin's will always pick the Griffin 3M, and let the rest sit and collect dust in the garage.

Please normalize armor and structure quirks across the mech chassis then differentiate them with weapon quirks/infotech/maneuverability. Thanks and have a nice day.

So if a Hunchy 4J gets quirks and all other don't, you are saying everyone will play hunchy 4Js and no other hunchies?

Yeah....right....

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I agree with the basic premise of the OP.

But, certain chassis or variants might need a bit more armor/structure here or there.

As long as it isn't just arbitrary "Let's make this variant tougher!" thinking and it can be linked to the chassis/variant design, I'm ok with it.

For example:
This Griffin has a pauldron/rander on 1 arm but not the other = this Griffin has an armor Quirk on that arm!

[MechaBattler]

Agree! It almost seems arbitrary. And in the case of mechs like the Hunchback. They don't give the hunch any extra. I like the idea that they purpose built that hunch to protect and accommodate the weapon.

I think instead of arbitrarily assigning them. They should take the actual surface space of each section and use that as a measurement for how much structure something should have. Like the Awesomes. How does that wide barn of a mech not rate structure quirks on all of them!?

[Livewyr]

Yeah... what's with the ONE Grasshopper with like an extra 150 hitpoints? (It's the 6 Energy hardpoint one at that...)

[BearFlag]

MechaBattler, on 04 November 2015 - 08:26 PM, said:

Agree! It almost seems arbitrary. And in the case of mechs like the Hunchback. They don't give the hunch any extra. I like the idea that they purpose built that hunch to protect and accommodate the weapon.

I think instead of arbitrarily assigning them. They should take the actual surface space of each section and use that as a measurement for how much structure something should have. Like the Awesomes. How does that wide barn of a mech not rate structure quirks on all of them!?

It is arbitrary. If it was systematic and mathematical, pattern should be readily evident. I'm not seeing it after working some numbers. This is disappointing given that the NGNG talkers billed it as mathematical and dispassionate - from a "spreadsheet." It is unfortunately now obvious that the rebalancing is not disciplined.

The KTO-18, 19 and 20, for example, have exactly the same quirks. Impossible in a math-based approach. Here and there, there are some apparent "rules-of-thumb" adjustments applied as with the CDA-2b within its family. But math? No - at least not in orderly fashion.

Edited by BearFlag, 05 November 2015 - 12:22 AM.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Livewyr, on 04 November 2015 - 08:33 PM, said:

Yeah... what's with the ONE Grasshopper with like an extra 150 hitpoints? (It's the 6 Energy hardpoint one at that...)

This is what I was talking about. One variant seems to have a huge advantage and the rest you look at and laugh. This is not how its supposed to be. The current quirk system, while not perfect, at least made an effort to get you to take each variant of a chassis, they had relatively close armor and structure, while being different with other quirks.

So far I like the general ideas in the PTS, but they are failing hard on quirks.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

TexAce, on 04 November 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

So if a Hunchy 4J gets quirks and all other don't, you are saying everyone will play hunchy 4Js and no other hunchies?

Yeah....right....

If its + 11 armor across the whole body and + 8 to structure, and the rest dont get it, you are correct. Who in there right mind wouldent take that over a " regular " hunchie? It would almost have the durability of a 65 ton mech! That is a huge difference and completely unbalanced.

[Livewyr]

Alwrath, on 05 November 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

The current quirk system, while not perfect, at least made an effort to get you to take each variant of a chassis, they had relatively close armor and structure, while being different with other quirks.

I wouldn't go that far... (especially since we see how the quirks boiled down)

[Skarlock]

The biggest problem I have with the current quirk values is that they are essentially incomplete. So what do I think about dragons now that they only have some really insignificant armor quirks and all their weapon quirks are gone? I think they're absolute garbage. However, PGI is only giving us a small piece of the overall picture, so I can't say how they will really end up once all is said and done. We need a real complete picture as all they are testing with this release on the PTS is some very specific things regarding target acquisition delay, sensor ranges, and targeting info gathering time based on a profile value. In other words, we still don't have everything we need to make real judgments which is kind of making these incremental changes absolutely pointless. I think there's very little point to even bother looking at things on test until we get something closer to the finished product. All the players are really doing is acting like functional QA testers making sure what PGI says they changed actually works the way they want it to. We can't really give balance feedback in a vacuum where only one thing is introduced, yet they plan on making further changes.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Livewyr, on 05 November 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

I wouldn't go that far... (especially since we see how the quirks boiled down)

Do you play alot of IS mechs? I have no problem taking out to battle ANY Hunchie, Griffin, Wolverine, Dragon, Battlemaster, Mauler, Wolfhound and blowing mechs up in the solo/group que. The list goes on but im too lazy to type all the chassis/variants.

Are most of them tier 1 mechs? No, but they are still enjoyable, functional mechs with the current quirk system. All PGI really has to do is tone down the tier 1 mechs that they over quirked and we would have a more balanced game.

Edited by Alwrath, 05 November 2015 - 08:01 AM.

[Livewyr]

Alwrath, on 05 November 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

Do you play alot of IS mechs? I have no problem taking out to battle ANY Hunchie, Griffin, Wolverine, Dragon, Battlemaster, Mauler, Wolfhound and blowing mechs up in the solo/group que. The list goes on but im too lazy to type all the chassis/variants.

Are most of them tier 1 mechs? No, but they are still enjoyable, functional mechs with the current quirk system. All PGI really has to do is tone down the tier 1 mechs that they over quirked and we would have a more balanced game.

There are so many garbage IS mechs in the live server. (Commandos come to mind...Shadowhawks for another.)

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Livewyr, on 05 November 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

There are so many garbage IS mechs in the live server. (Commandos come to mind...Shadowhawks for another.)

Agreed. Those are on the bottom of the IS mech list. I would like to see Shawks and commandos get a quirk buff pass.

[TexAce]

Alwrath, on 05 November 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

If its + 11 armor across the whole body and + 8 to structure, and the rest dont get it, you are correct. Who in there right mind wouldent take that over a " regular " hunchie? It would almost have the durability of a 65 ton mech! That is a huge difference and completely unbalanced.

lol no - just stop it please, you are making a fool out of yourself.

[Anyone00]

Yeah, I feel these chassis wide armor/structure quirks should be the same or at least ball park to one another within the same general model.

[50 50]

Whether or not those figures stay is debateable.
But in a test environment it will give us the ability to measure how effective the buffs are compared to a mech of the same chassis that doesn't have them.
Use it as a benchmark.
Obviously it is nice to have the buffs, but are they too high?
Is it noticeable enough?
Does this make a difference when combined with the other attributes on the mech such as the radar profile that provides a different form of defence?

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I want to add my voice. But, I'm not sure there's a need!

It's pretty much agreed that 'Mechs should have similar structure/armor/mobility Quirks.

Only caveat I might re-mention is: "unless a variant has a particular feature". And that better be explicitly apparent, too!

[maxdest]

I hope this is not the full picture and PGI have just not quirked all mechs.

For previous player thoughts on thisfrom phase 1, refer to:
http://mwomercs.com/...is-consistancy/

[Koshirou]

Completely agree. No chassis consistency = another nail in the coffin of my participation in this.

Also, what's with the "global" quirks? Seems like a step backward from quirking vulnerable body parts. If you want to simplify things, roll armor and structure quirks into one and express them as a percentage value, for example:

CT toughness: +10%
RT/LT tougness: 5%

Then again, the fact that maxdest wrote about this at length and with good arguments in phase 1, made a poll that showed a great support for chassis consistency, only for PGI to completely ignore it all, does not leave me hopeful.

Edited by Koshirou, 08 November 2015 - 02:30 AM.

[DivineEvil]

It doesn't seem it was ever intended to balance anything at all. It does creates some unsystematic variety, but aside from that, I really doubt that these values has any relevance to the intended end-goal balance neither for mechs not for their variants. If anything, it just an idea to test out how the one-quirk, uniform values are going to play out.

I haven't really cared about them nearly enough to see a reason for creating a forum thread discussing them.

Edited by DivineEvil, 08 November 2015 - 04:01 AM.